Andy, the users who have not made substantive edits are the ones that get burned by the rule! You probably know that Mr. V, along with another of others, are occasionally beaten up for the ''appearance'' (emphasis on appearance) of hypocrisy in blocking people over the naming rule while not himself complying with it. He was simply lucky that no one was zealous in applying the rule when he was new. He is making a good-faith effort to fix this appearance of hypocrisy. Please let him do so. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:47, 19 March 2013 (EDT)

Andy, the users who have not made substantive edits are the ones that get burned by the rule! You probably know that Mr. V, along with another of others, are occasionally beaten up for the ''appearance'' (emphasis on appearance) of hypocrisy in blocking people over the naming rule while not himself complying with it. He was simply lucky that no one was zealous in applying the rule when he was new. He is making a good-faith effort to fix this appearance of hypocrisy. Please let him do so. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:47, 19 March 2013 (EDT)

+

:I must admit I always assumed Vergne was the surname. Still if someone wants to change their name it can do no harm can it? --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 22:51, 19 March 2013 (EDT)

Question about Government Homework

Mr. Schlafly,

When I went to post my homework answers last night, Conservapedia did not allow me to “edit” the page. Does the website have a curfew? And for the future, when precisely are the homework assignments due? Thanks. --MorganT 17:42, 21 September 2012 (EDT)

Editing was turned off by the system for a few hours yesterday. Sorry for any inconvenience due to not being able to post. Assignments are due on Wednesdays, but it's not a problem that this homework was late.--Andy Schlafly 17:58, 21 September 2012 (EDT)

iPSC therapies

Sorry to belabor the point, but I thought you might find this interesting. There are currently fifteen active clinical trials in the United States using patient-derived stem cells ("adult stem cells") to treat spinal cord injuries. At least one of these trials uses induced pluripotent stem cells derived from terminally-differentiated cells. In spite of the astronomical cancer risk associated, this is an active area of clinical research in the United States.--JHunter 17:58, 20 November 2012 (EST)

The link says the location is South Korea, not the United States.

Anti-life types have not, and will not, allow meaningful therapy with adult stem cells in the United States for victims of paralysis.--Andy Schlafly 23:06, 20 November 2012 (EST)

You're right that this clinical trial is in the United States (Texas). Thanks for finding and linking to it. But look at how small and limited the study is: only ten people, and perhaps half of them would receive a placebo rather than the stem cell treatment. Allowing stem cell treatment on only 5 persons every 3 years (the study won't complete until 2014) is so little that it is almost nothing.

It is surprising that the study excludes non-English-speaking patients.--Andy Schlafly 17:30, 21 November 2012 (EST)

Panera Bread

This company must cater to the liberal/harassment crowd, including the one on Mowry Avenue, Fremont; they have that certain "homosexual execution" accuser sitting there now. Should we give them a call? Karajou 14:06, 21 November 2012 (EST)

GregG

I would recommend granting him delete privileges, as he has shown himself to be a fair sysop, and always vigilantly watching for spammers. Also, please do something about the 30 odd pages that still need to be deleted. Thanks, brenden 15:52, 21 November 2012 (EST)

Template fun

I am getting rusty on the template programming syntax, so it took me a few edits to get the right result on both the template documentation and on the individual articles (which should not show extra blank lines in the box.) Everything is fine now, so please protect away. Thanks, Wschact 00:03, 22 November 2012 (EST)

Epistle to the Hebrews

The idea that Jesus is the author of this text is held only by you. Is this enough to put it into an article? Please remember: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable. " --AugustO 14:38, 22 November 2012 (EST)

Um, I also hold the same belief as Aschlafly that the Epistle to the Hebrews was written by Jesus as I don't believe no one else would of had the insight to do it. Dvergne 04:54, 23 November 2012 (EST)

@Dvergne: You are highlighting the danger of the situation: any person not being well informed can be mislead by the authoritative statement in the article!

@Aschlafly: I'm trying to get a kind of poll of the sysops - at least of those (ten including you) who have edited this year (out of a total of thirty!)

User:Conservative deleted this page in my userspace without an explanation. I tried to contact him twice about the deletion at his message area, but he oversighted both of my contributions and protected his message area. Thus, I am asking you to either have User:Conservative explain the deletion of a page in my userspace and/or have the page restored. I also think that User:Conservative's actions in this matter qualify as abuse of administrative powers (and, as an aside, are very ironic considering this user's campaign against those who lack what he/she/it/they/I call "machismo"). Thanks, GregG 22:05, 24 November 2012 (EST)

GregG, you may look back and thank me. You are starting to get obsessed with my every edit and keeping a log of some of my non-main space edits. You are beginning to resemble evolutionists/atheists with Severe Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder. Just look at my deletion as an "intervention". A cold splash of water in the face to break your obsession with me.

We both know what is mainly causing this obsession. You inability to defend evolutionism against valid criticism plus my pointing out that Ken Miller can't either. Conservative 22:21, 24 November 2012 (EST)

This has nothing to do with evolution or religion. I am not obsessed with you. Also, it's ironic that this charge is coming from someone who showed enough dedication to my contributions and/or the recent changes page to delete a page in my userspace. GregG 22:35, 24 November 2012 (EST)

ETA Also, I don't see dedication to this project as a disorder. I trust that you wouldn't either, given your extensive contributions to the project. GregG 22:35, 24 November 2012 (EST)

By your logic, everyone is "obsessed" with Conservapedia; those who deny such, according to you, are exemplifying symptoms. Simply ridiculous. GregG 11:20, 25 November 2012 (EST)

Why don't you both focus on the original topic? I thought userspaces were supposed to be left to the user in question on this project. Isn't that one of the ways we are different from Wikipedia? I seem to recall reading that somewhere on here. Unfortunately, I can't see the page so I don't know what it said. But I think Conservative needs to explain his deletion. This has nothing to do with evolution, obsession, creationism, or any of the other things you guys have been getting into in this thread. It is a more simple matter than that. Focus. Gregkochuconn 21:39, 25 November 2012 (EST)

Feast of Christ the King is today

Perhaps this would be good to mention on our main page. GregG 11:21, 25 November 2012 (EST)

Hi Greg! It's almost time to begin our wait for the birth of Jesus Christ next week. Hope all is well. Because of His merciful love, Nate Nate 15:00, 25 November 2012 (EST)

spambots

You really should look into some way of installing questycaptcha. Also, any idea why they lately aren't spamming links to external sites, but rather spamming us with a wall of text, of no apparent advertisement value?brenden 22:09, 25 November 2012 (EST)

Possible page protection

Andy would you consider protecting Epistle to the Hebrews - currently it's only subject to redundant edit warring that is August removing the theory and MattyD parodying. This type of edit warring isn't good for the page.--IDuan 12:23, 26 November 2012 (EST)

Full disclosure after that initial request the edit warring has died down (hopefully because they finally realized how futile edit warring is)--IDuan 12:32, 26 November 2012 (EST)

Unprotect

Hello; could you unprotect Template:cquote for 2 minutes for me? There's a bug in the template that's causing every page it's featured on to be listed in the categrory Category:Template Debug. Thanks so much! --IDuan 16:12, 26 November 2012 (EST)

Photos

I wrote articles for Jagdpanther and Tiger I tank, recently. I hate to bother you admins as I have seen you have to spend way too much time with spam and reverting vandalism. If you have the time could you find a photo for the articles? I don't know how to upload, nor determine a fair-use photo. Maybe it is something I could learn; is there a guide for it? Cheers,
John.

Revisiting blocking due to names

Hi, best wishes to you on this lovely Sunday. :-) I have a small concern that I was wondering if you'd care to consider: blocking due to user names. Moments ago Dvergne blocked new user LordByron with an expiry time of 6 months with this reason: ("Silly and/or foul username. Account may be recreated as a first name and last initial"). I was wondering if we are being a bit too hasty in blocking for this reason? Certainly we have had way too many spammers/vandals/inappropriate name accounts, and have had to block way more than we should, but to block so quickly before a single edit is made, in a case like this where the use name is not particularly inappropriate, could this be a bit hasty on our part? Could we be discouraging legitimate users? I was just thinking that many older users such as myself, have "nonstandard" user names: Karajou, Conservative, JMR10, are a few other editors that come to mind. We are all valued, responsible editors, although we have non-traditional user names. Just a small thought that came to me today, and was wondering what you thought about it. Thank you for your consideration in this matter, blessings to you & yours. Taj 17:02, 2 December 2012 (EST)

Apologies for an extra edit; one more thought please. I just looked at our Guidelines and it currently states this:

As a sign of good faith and accountability it is recommended that editors select a user name based on a permutation of their real name. Whenever this would cause confusion, a name based upon a hobby or characteristic would also be acceptable.

Perhaps we should revise either our policy to conform to guidelines or guidelines to conform to actuality. Thanks again, Taj 17:08, 2 December 2012 (EST)

Taj, you make excellent points, and your own edits are much appreciated. Perhaps a few blocks have been too hasty, as you say. But in defense of User:Dvergne, he's been doing many appropriate blocks and I think he was probably also correct in blocking "LordByron". The probability is very, very small that a real LordByron established that account, given how few "Lords" there are, and how advanced most are in age (and thus unlikely to be internet savvy). It is far more likely that someone who was not a Lord Byron picked that name, which would thereby warrant an immediate block.

But thanks for your comments and I'd be happy to look at any suggested rewording of the rules. User names other than real first names and last initials are allowed when the editor makes substantive, legitimate edits, but I'd rather not try to formalize that practice in the actual rule.--Andy Schlafly 19:30, 2 December 2012 (EST)

Ok, I understand. Thank you for the reply. I didn't really think that user was a Lord, I just thought perhaps the name would have been ok. But I understand that it is preferred to have real names. Best Wishes, Taj 19:39, 2 December 2012 (EST)

I don't have a firm view one way or the other about the policy. However perhaps a gentle reminder to blockers to not jump the gun might be in order. Today I had to unblock an editor who signed up as JBerttram42 who had been blocked under the username policy. There is no way of knowing whether this editor had good intentions for the site or not, but almost certainly if he was a good faith user he won't be back. --DamianJohn 01:51, 3 December 2012 (EST)

Aschlafly, you are claiming that in the Epistle to the Hebrews Jesus Christ is speaking about himself in the third person. That wouldn't be unheard of, we find this often in classical literature. E.g., when we read

“

Caesar saw the horse.

”

it could well be that Caesar was the author of this sentence. But what's about

“

Caesar saw me.

”

Here it is obvious that Caesar is not the author, as we have an instance of the first person (me). The same holds true for the Epistle to the Hebrews. One example is Hebrews 3:6

Aschlafly, given your apparent aversion against the phrase "I was wrong" and your general shyness when it comes to replying to my comments on this encyclopedia, it is hard to tell whether you have abandoned your claim "one plausible theory is that Jesus himself wrote or dictated it" or just lost interest in the whole thing.

Semantic HTML markup

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

After seeing this edit, I noticed that you used the <br> tag. It's a good idea to use semantic markup where possible so that different users can understand how to format the articles appropriately for various devices. In this particular case, leaving a blank line will cause MediaWiki to crate a new paragraph, which is probably what you were intending. I can go ahead and fix these issues on other pages too. Thanks, GregG 20:22, 3 December 2012 (EST)

Protected Pages

Pretty much every important page on Conservapedia can only be edited by administrators now (as far as I can tell). While I understand the importance of protecting articles, I do not see why debate topics are also protected. Debate pages should be open to everyone and all opinions. RaymondZ 07:54, 4 December 2012 (EST)

Note

"Repent of this Athiesm"

"Repent of this atheism" on the main page should either be "repent for this atheism" or "rid himself of this atheism." You "repent for" something, you don't "repent of" it. Gregkochuconn 22:02, 7 December 2012 (EST)

Is it just a temporary loss of interest...

... or have you discarded your insight that one plausible theory is that Jesus himself wrote or dictated the Epistle to the Hebrews? An answer to this question could save me some work... --AugustO 11:17, 9 December 2012 (EST)

So, you haven't discarded the insight. Then I'm waiting for you to address the points above, i.e.,

Aschlafly, you are claiming that in the Epistle to the Hebrews Jesus Christ is speaking about himself in the third person. That wouldn't be unheard of, we find this often in classical literature. E.g., when we read

“

Caesar saw the horse.

”

it could well be that Caesar was the author of this sentence. But what's about

“

Caesar saw me.

”

Here it is obvious that Caesar is not the author, as we have an instance of the first person (me). The same holds true for the Epistle to the Hebrews. One example is Hebrews 3:6

The ACLU has repeatedly opposed single-gender classes in public school, even though many schools and parents agree they work better. Thanks for linking to the above story, where the ACLU is complaining to the Department of Education, which creates a bit of a political issue for the Obama Administration. There are lots more of these single-gender schools than liberals want to admit - and they work well. I think there are even entire single-gender public schools now!

I am interested in these cases and I doubt the ACLU will win this issue in the long run. Thanks for mentioning it.--Andy Schlafly 21:33, 10 December 2012 (EST)

"Play in a State with so Much Liberal Mediocrity"

Technically, Tebow plays in New Jersey, home of Governor Chris Christie, who is neither mediocre nor a liberal. But I can't figure out how to rephrase it so it's factually accurate and not awkward-sounding, so unless you can do so, I'd just leave it that way on the main page. Nobody thinks of the Jets as being from New Jersey anyway. Gregkochuconn 16:58, 12 December 2012 (EST)

NJ voted for Obama in 2008/2012 and Obama is very liberal and more liberal than the RINO Mitt Romney.

Tea Party people and many other conservatives don't think Christie is a conservative.[1][2][3]

The team's fans are primarily in the New York metropolitan area which includes parts of NY/NJ. Conservative 20:37, 12 December 2012 (EST)

Email

Has the "Email this user" feature been disabled? I'm a bit rusty, but I can't seem to find it on any user pages. I also can't edit my email address under my preferences, which has changed since I was last here (finally jumped from hotmail to gmail). -- Jeff W. LauttamusDiscussion 14:26, 14 December 2012 (EST)

The email feature is disabled. It could return at some point. Sorry for any inconvenience.--Andy Schlafly 15:50, 14 December 2012 (EST)

The cited source is not enough support for the claim. Was this merely a dispute with the school district that lasted only a few days, or a few weeks? There is much greater evidence that Adam Lanza attended public high school, with an entry for him in the graduation yearbook.

No other homeschooler has corroborated the claim that Adam Lanza was homeschooled. Perhaps his mom thought about homeschooling him, and tried homeschooling briefly, but apparently she opted for public school instead.--Andy Schlafly 15:50, 16 December 2012 (EST)

Even if he was homeschooled for a brief period of time - he was homeschooled. In a true encyclopedia you don't leave out information so you can conveniently avoid discussion; you either mention the controversy or find a factually correct way around it (which would be listing both - since both are true). Mentioning that his mom considered homeschooling but chose public schools does not present the reality that he was - PERHAPS for a brief period of time but certainly for a time period - home schooled.--IDuan 15:53, 16 December 2012 (EST)

No, merely pulling a child out of public school because of a dispute with the school is not "homeschooling". It's called keeping the kid at home in protest.--Andy Schlafly 16:07, 16 December 2012 (EST)

Iduan, you are a good editor, but in this case I think you are wrong. I agree with ASchlafly, I don't think Adam Lanza can properly be termed "home schooled". Home schooling involves set lesson plans, a consistent progress evaluation, and a home teacher or parent who has a great interest in or background in childhood education and willingness to devote a lot of time for this. As the facts stand, we know that Lanza's mother removed him from public school due to a dispute with the school, it wasn't a predetermined plan for homeschooling, and we have no information on what type of schooling he received at home. In any case, this situation is an anomaly, a very unusual occurance, in that this young man was already known to have behavioral issues and personality problems. He is not typical of, or representative of, most home schooled children. (I looked up info and statistics on this, that's how I came to this conclusion). It would be accurate to say his mother removed him from public school at some point, but it just doesn't seem right to say he was "home schooled". In my opinion. Thanks, Taj 17:32, 16 December 2012 (EST)

Personal Honeypot

I've set up a honeypot wiki, to track and monitor wiki spammers. If you want, I can give you checkuser priviledges there, so you can partake in the experiment/project yourself. Url, if you are interested. brenden 23:27, 17 December 2012 (EST)

Merry Christmas!

As I will be spending the next few days offline with family, a very merry Christmas to you and your family, sir. --Benp 14:12, 23 December 2012 (EST)

And Merry Christmss to you and your family, Ben!--Andy Schlafly 14:15, 23 December 2012 (EST)

Your most recent counterexample to relativity (#48, about a black hole "firewall") is really fascinating. I had never heard about that idea, or about the "AMPS" (Almheiri, Polchinski, Marolf and Sully) hypothesis in general, though I knew about strange goings-on within the Planck distance from the event horizon. I have a lot of reading to catch up on, and will try to get back in a couple of days.

Santa may find me asleep, slumped in my chair with a book in my hand. I'll try to leave at least a few cookies for him, but there's no guarantee. Late-night physics reading creates a strong craving for chocolate chips.....

I'm pleased that the further review is now finished: the restoration of my blocking rights is the vindication I've been looking for over the last months. Thank you very much, that was a nice Christmas surprise!

Early voting and voter ID

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

I know you are interested in early voting, so I finished my analysis of early voting and voter ID in the strict photo voter ID states. You can find it at User:GregG/Early voting and voter ID. Merry Christmas, GregG 11:28, 24 December 2012 (EST)

Djw0071

I am troubled by biographical articles that do not name the individual nor supply reliable secondary sources about the individual. Today an article was created on Djw0071, but there are no real sources and the article was immediately protected. We have no way of knowing whether this person exists (or whether this person is a close friend of the person that wrote the article.) Absent reliable sources and the give-and-take of the editorial process, I respectfully question whether such an article complies with CP policy. Do you feel that the page should be protected from editing? Thanks, Wschact 02:14, 27 December 2012 (EST)

I fail to see the points in your argument as Djw0071 clearly exists as they have a youtube channel that has a nice selection of quite informative videos. The page locking is a bit annoying as I can see a few grammatical errors.` Dvergne 02:49, 27 December 2012 (EST)

I would be equally concerned whether it was appropriate for an encyclopedia to have articles in its mainspace about virtually unknown and irrelevant people on Youtube. The guy has 30 subscribers, and his 15 or so videos have only been viewed a total of 10,700 times, in the 4 years he has been on Youtube. This makes him a complete unknown and not notable in the least. There simply shouldn't be an article on anyone at Conservapedia unless they are even marginally significant. --DamianJohn 02:50, 27 December 2012 (EST)

Those numbers do seem a bit low, however there is evidence that Creationist channels are not treated as equally as say Evolutionist channels on youtube. Dvergne 02:55, 27 December 2012 (EST)

I don't believe that for a second but however. If you look at his videos, they are actually of pretty average quality. "Cat farting" is unlikely to get many views nor is a spectacularly banal point he makes about something Obiwan Kenobi says compared to Yoda, or a rant about hotdogs. It seems pretty clear to me that there is a bit of a quid pro quo going on here here; the owner/operator of the Question Evolution! has agreed to advertise Djw's channel in return for Djw giving that blog a plug in a video. That seems fair enough to me, and I encourage both parties to proceed with the best of luck, however it is NOT something that Conservapedia should be involved with. The mainspace of Conservapdia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an advertising medium for various blogs. The community will be looking to Aschlafly to provide leadership on this issue. --DamianJohn 03:19, 27 December 2012 (EST)

I have to agree that it was poor judgment to create Djw0071. The four "sources" provided are all links to the same anonymous blog, of which only two distinct pages are cited. And, as someone with a YouTube account (albeit one that has not had any new videos uploaded in about 3 years), I can assure you that, on statistics alone (which are about the same as mine), the channel is nowhere close to being notable. I don't see why non-notable people on the Internet have articles while this encyclopedia still lacks information on very notable people. GregG 11:01, 27 December 2012 (EST)

We all know that Djw0071 is poised to be a rising star in young earth creationism. Evolutionists, let's stop pretending otherwise. :) Conservative 13:49, 29 December 2012 (EST)

Well then when he starts rising, we can recreate the article. As I recall, deleted articles aren't permanently erased - they can still be accessed and restored by sysops. He may very well be "poised to be a rising star" but he's not a "rising star" yet, as the numbers clearly demonstrate. Gregkochuconn 17:53, 20 January 2013 (EST)

Judging by his body of work on YouTube, this has less to do with "young earth creationism" than it does "young YouTube video creator." Could the article please state his name and age? Is he a close relative of a CP editor? Wschact 18:02, 20 January 2013 (EST)

Merry Christmas

And a Merry Christmas to you too! DouglasA 14:01, 27 December 2012 (EST)

Overzealous blocking

Aschlafy, please have a look here (or, if it the section gets deleted, here). --AugustO 23:51, 27 December 2012 (EST)

vandal spree

By the time you read this (and probably revert to my version :-), you will see that there's been some bad goings on. Isn't there a policy that someone with blocking powers should be "on duty" at all times? Isn't that why editing is shut down overnight? Never mind. AlanE just stepped up. JudyJ 22:02, 29 December 2012 (EST)

SkipCaptcha and reverting

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

Pardon my thinking aloud, but I think it should be possible to not prompt for a CAPTCHA when reverting an article to a previous revision. I'll take a look on MediaWiki to see if there is a way to add this feature. GregG 23:47, 29 December 2012 (EST)

Someone has already requested such a feature [4], but it hasn't had any activity since June 2011. GregG 23:58, 29 December 2012 (EST)

Thanks

Thanks Aschlafly for the clean up of the mass vandalism by Germanottaparamore, which included my talk page and many others, as well. Cheers, --JohnJustice 11:19, 31 December 2012 (EST)

Hello

My name is Cole and I need help. I recently made an article about a website that harasses Conservapedia and its users. It was deleted. So I decided to go to Ed Poor for help.

This is what I said and stand by:

Im new here and need some help. I figured I would go to you since you seem very involved in the community. I recently tried to instate an article about R*tional Wiki and suddenly it was deleted. I thought since we had an article about Wikipedia that we could write about wikis. I also noticed that it had been deleted several times by the same people. Why? The words are spam filtered to. I feel that we need to write about the faults and propaganda of this completely biased website. Not to mention they completely badmouth you in the most rude ways. Please help...

To which he responded:

If you want to write about a website which slanders us, please contact User:Aschlafly for permission.

So I did and would like to know your opinion on the matter. Thank you--Colesmithsayshi 16:04, 31 December 2012 (EST)

I recently spoke with another editor concerning some edits to the video game article I considered erroneous and in some cases, spurious, and he suggested I refer my concerns to you.

The full list of most of my concerns can be found on the talk page for the article, but there was a claim you added that I did find a reference for, specifically, the one about how video games have contributed to the dropout rate of colleges:

The page referenced here is from 2008, but it does reinforce an assertion I initially removed that I originally found groundless. Still, I believe it would be wise to have a more contemporary source for this assertion, as it was one of the few articles I could find that defended that assertion.

For example, these articles cite other causes that have been consistently cited and verified elsewhere:

However, I have to confess to taking issue with the removal of the statement about games contributing to the development of critical thinking, which I know is not true as a gamer, and these articles can easily reinforce that point as valid:

For these reasons, I believe that article needs the part about critical thinking restored, and the part you added about drop out rates should probably be added farther down the page around the part where the article discusses the social impact of gaming (for good and ill).

I have no desire to contribute anything further to this website

I consider myself myself a Christian, I try believe the Bible is word of God, and I try not to sin against my fellow man, and I do think abortion and homosexuality have no moral standing in the eyes of God, and that he sent his son Jesus (who was God in human form) as our redemption and the Holy Spirit as a guide to that redemption.

At the same time, I believe in the God who redeems the sinful and hates the sin but not the sinner, a God who was stern but willing to show love for his enemies, even willing to die on a Cross for his enemies, friends, and even those who did not know him so that all may have everlasting life, and I believe in the God who showed kindness to not only prostitutes and tax collectors, but also to the very Pharisees who would eventually put him on the Cross, wishing to forgive them for the sheer gravity of the sin they didn't realize they were committing as he died there.

With that said, I must confess I heard a lot of bad press about Conservapedia before coming here, and I decided to follow the example of that tolerant, loving God, and I decided to ignore the scorn and derision of its critics, so I registered an account to post here, because while it did seem a little farther to the right than I anticipated, I did appreciate the idea of a conservative oriented wiki project, so I decided to contribute.

At first, I was frustrated by the general disorganization of the site and limited rights I had as an editor, but considered the frequent vandalism I seen that had to be undone, I understood the reasons for those limits and decided to contribute as best I could in helping improve the site quality.

I was aware that many parodists and trolls had infiltrated the site and had corrupted articles, and when I read over the articles accusing Obama of being a Muslim without any real proof that would withstand the scrutiny of a court of law (which, as I understand, would be an anathema to you, Mr. Schlafly, as you are a lawyer), I decided to investigate those sources to see if they had any basis to them.

Before I continue, I do not believe Obama has been an effective President of America nor an effective political leader, and I don't entirely believe his stated faith and his public morality matched up, but even Christians can fall away from the word of God, and unless there was solid proof of his being a Muslim, I will not accuse anyone of something I cannot prove, just as Jesus refused to accuse the Pharisees of things he could not prove, And besides, freedom of religious expression is an integral constitutional right, and even if Obama were a Muslim, that is completely immaterial to me as long as it does not infringe on my right to be a Christian.

As for those sources, I investigated many of them, and many of those sources were not only conservatively biased (this is an educational resource with a conservative focus, so that is not entirely bad), but some were clearly wrong, such as the oath of office not taking place on a bible (that's tradition, not law) being proof Obama was a Muslim, the point about Obama's middle name (even if he were a Muslim, even Muslim tradition would have no objection to his middle name, and US law would not require his name be changed for any reason), and most disgusting of all, the fact a Youtube video produced a religious bigot who equated Nazism with Islam accused Obama of mocking the Bible (I found the Original broadcast of the excerpted comments, and they were taken out of context) was clearly nothing but anti-Muslim hatred.

For the record, the reason I take issue with anti-Muslim hatred is this: they worship the same God as do Christians and Jews, so even if Obama were still Muslim, he still believes in the same God as you or I do, and he hasn't infringed on our rights to worship that God in any way, so the focus on his religion and why he must be a Muslim sounded more than a little paranoid. Besides, while John F. Kennedy was a Catholic, I would no more hold that against him than I would Obama being a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Shinto, Scientologist or even an agnostic or atheist, since the Constitution guarantees the right to believe anything you want, and while his public morality and political career seems like relevant targets of a conservative wiki, I found it frankly ridiculous and more than a little suspect about the focus on how Obama HAD TO BE a Muslim since quit I posting the day before this message.

When I finally decided to check back in, not only were the words other editors who also had reasonable doubts ignored (despite being legitimate), but I found this:

It wasn't even an extension of the religion debate, it was basically asking why anyone would doubt your own assertion Obama was a Muslim, and coupled with a reversal of almost every single reasonable doubt on the topic, I can only conclude your mind has already been made up that Obama is a Muslim, and while I don't understand your motives for this nor why the opinions of those who are clearly bigoted are allowed to stand as if they were as legitimate fact, I can only further conclude this wiki is little more than a vehicle for bigotry, intolerance, and hatred, just as was asserted in another wiki that criticizes this one and even a blog by a former administrator, and if that's the case, I want to be be permanently blocked as an editor from this wiki, as I want no more association with it, just as Jesus wished the temple of God to have no more association with moneychangers.

I bear you nor anyone else here any malice or ill will, Mr. Schlafly, but if this website is a representation of what true conservatives are like, then by its standards I'm a liberal. If this place is a representation of what followers of Christ believe, then by its standards I'm a heretic. And finally, if you want to know what I think a Christian is, then here it is in a sentence:

This user is a Christian, and remembers that Jesus preached tolerance and love, not homophobia and hate.

Patrick, I don't have time right now to read your lengthy posting. Whether Obama is a Muslim is matter of historical and political interest, and discussions about it are appropriate and enlightening. There is nothing anti-Muslim about it. Quite the contrary, it is important to give credit where it is due.--Andy Schlafly 10:51, 4 January 2013 (EST)

Can I respectfully suggest

That you consider whether Dvergne is the sort of person that should have blocking privileges here. He maliciously and without sufficient cause blocked me for an hour. Despite me being able to unblock myself I was unable to edit. His stated reason was that I had blocked a user named Funforever for breach of the name policy whilst in the middle of a bit of a swarm of spammers. If a mistake was made by me, I would hope that people entrusted with block powers would have the maturity to leave a comment on my talkpage, and not just deliberately seek to inflame the situation. --DamianJohn 22:58, 6 January 2013 (EST)

It seems this incident was a misunderstanding and the user has recreated their account (however it normally directly says so) Dvergne 23:03, 6 January 2013 (EST)

Dvergne was right about the unjustified block of "Funforever", who had done many legitimate edits. It seems this was a misunderstanding that has been cleared up.--Andy Schlafly 23:06, 6 January 2013 (EST)

Was he right to just block me though. Don't you think a quick note to me might have been a more mature and appropriate response? --DamianJohn 23:09, 6 January 2013 (EST)

No! There is something buiLding here. A "mitteleuropa"-type pre- or neo-nazi thing happening. Andy - shut it down!AlanE 23:23, 6 January 2013 (EST)

English names for foreign cities

Could you please take a look here? Thanks. --AugustO 03:28, 7 January 2013 (EST)

Upload request

I have an image I'd like to upload and insert in the article George Bernard Shaw. Can you tell me how to proceed? FOIA 16:11, 10 January 2013 (EST)

Please email a link to the image to conservapedia@zoho.com. Thanks!--Andy Schlafly 20:29, 10 January 2013 (EST)

It's not actually a photo. It's a screen grab of a New York Times headline and portion of an article from 1933. The article won't be public domain for another 10 years, but a lo-res screen grab of a portion showing the headline should fall under fair use. FOIA 13:55, 22 January 2013 (EST)

Spending authority vs Backdoor spending authority

There seems to be a dispute brewing over a redirect from spending authority to backdoor spending authority. The terms are identical in meaning, and according to a former Rules Committee Chairwoman "spending authority" is merely the technical term for "backdoor authority". Can the Spending authority page be protected after a Redirect, or is there a process to resolve such an issues? Thanks. OscarO 20:26, 10 January 2013 (EST)

Andy, with all due respect, I find serious problems with OscarO's editing, including the verbatim lifting of text from Louise Slaughter's website without proper attribution. I thought that Slaughter was a liberal Democrat. Spending authority is a well defined term. "Backdoor spending authority" appears to reflect the jaded views of her committee staff. Conservatives favor user fees, privatization and public-private partnerships as an alternative to "tax and spend." Committee staff would smear those advances (which worked under Thatcher in the UK) as "backdoor" and seek to control everything through a centralized appropriation process instead of placing certain projects and services into their own financial "boat." The Spending Authority was reliably edited by conservatives from 2007 thru 2008 and remained in place until OscarO tried to redirect it to his Democrat-inspired "backdoor spending authority" article. I believe the redirect should be removed and the 2008 version of the article restored. Thanks, Wschact 23:56, 10 January 2013 (EST)

OscarO has extended an olive branch which I accept. We discuss whether the redirect should stay or go. Thanks, Wschact 00:52, 11 January 2013 (EST)

Backdoor spending is spending on auto-pilot. Elected Congresspersons can't even control it. Only 31% of the budget is discretionary spending which they do control. But if the Senate under Reid refuses to pass a budget, or do appropriations (as mandated by law), the only control mechanism left that the peoples elected representatives have is the debt ceiling. The fact unprecedented, unsustainable deficits and accumulated national debt, destroying jobs and the US economy, is the result of backdoor spending is something conservatives very much are interested and would like to learn about it more detail. OscarO 12:39, 11 January 2013 (EST)

If OscarO intends for "backdoor spending authority" to have a negative connotation, then it is something different from "spending authority". So, the article that was last edited in 2008 should be restored, and kept separate from the new article that he wrote yesterday. Again, the fact that only 31% of the budget is discretionary spending may be a good thing. Some people advocate ending most non-defense discretionary spending. Many conservatives favor toll roads, user fees, public-private partnership and privatization over "tax and spend" centralized control. All of these approaches involve decision-making, not "spending on auto-pilot." If the appropriations committees (and Congress as a whole) have less power and control of the economy, conservatives would claim a victory. Wschact 12:57, 11 January 2013 (EST)

On the separate issue as to whether the Senate has written and passed appropriation bills, the Senate has done its usual work on appropriation bills, but in some cases, they are blocked from coming to the floor by a Senate Republican filibuster. Reid tried to roll them up into a single, government-wide appropriation bill, but that also drew a filibuster. So, generally speaking, during the past few years Congress has only been able to appropriate funds in the form of continuing resolutions generally based on a percentage of prior year's spending. The funds are being appropriated at least through March 2013. Work is underway for the FY 2014 budget. So, as soon as Congress resolves the rest of the FY 2013 spending debate, it will have to turn to FY 2014 and adopt appropriation bills before October 2013. We are paying 535 officials to debate and make decisions, but all of that work is replaced by McConnell and Biden meeting in secret to work out a last-minute deal. This is not healthy, but CP should be careful to report on it as accurately as possible. Wschact 13:17, 11 January 2013 (EST)

No, I don't think you've grasped the narrative that has ensued since President's Obama's first 100 days. Sen Susan Collins (R-ME) broke ranks and voted to waive the Budget Act of 1974, dispensing with the appropriations process. Under Slaughter House Rules, the ARRA (intended as only one year "emergency spending" stimulus) and PPACA were passed without bi-partisan consensus. With the Budget Act waived, there's no need for Senate Democrats to go through the regular Appropriations process. Senate Democrats have not passed, nor even proposed a budget in more than three years now, using continuing resolutions instead -- and keeping Obama's one year, "emergency stimulus" spending levels intact for four years. Hence $5 trillion added to the national debt without our elected Senators even being allowed to vote on appropriations. OscarO 13:51, 11 January 2013 (EST)

Respectfully, the comments just above show why "backdoor spending authority" and "spending authority" should be two separate articles. The "spending authority" article was written in 2007 and updated in 2008. It is accurate and objective. "Backdoor spending authority" which was started yesterday, is turning into an opinion essay. Let's look at the appropriation process for FY 2013. THOMAS summary. Both the House and the Senate Committee have passed most of the appropriation bills. The full House did not pass 5 of the bills, and all of the Senate bills were filibustered and not allowed to be brought to the floor for a vote. However, the overall spending levels for FY2013 were set by the Budget Control Act of 2011 which included $1 trillion in identified cuts in addition to an across-the-board sequester that was supposed to go into effect on Jan 1, but has now been postponed to Mar 1. Many of the appropriation bills have bipartisan support. For example the Senate Defense Appropriation bill passed 30-0. The Appropriations Committees are drafting bills and committee reports and spending cuts have been enacted. Rather than using the regular order of voting on appropriation bills and resolving differences in conference committees and the budget reconciliation process, Congress is shifting from a 525-person process to a two-man negotiation: McConnell/Biden. Continuing resolutions are a form of appropriation (although not a good one.) I respectfully submit that OscarO is misinterpreting sources that addressed the 2009 stimulus bill and the ACA as applying to the FY2013 or FY2014 spending considerations. Thanks, Wschact 16:40, 11 January 2013 (EST)

The THOMAS link supports exactly what I outlined. Read it. The only action agreed upon by both houses and signed by the president was a Supplemental. Then you have Continuing Appropriations Act (through 3/27/2013) which is not an "Act" or law and doesn't need the president's signature because it is a continuing resolution to continue spending levels based upon the FY 2012's continuing resolution, which was based upon 2011's continuing resolution, which was based upon 2010's continuing resolution, which was based upon the last time the President proposed a budget and Senate Democrats voted on and passed a budget (when Susan Collins broke the filibuster against the vote to waived the Budget Act) in 2009. (See Summary). Like wise the Budget Resolution HConRes112, which "the President does not sign", cause it's not a law, budget, or appropriation. It's just a joint resolution of both houses to continue spending at last years levels cause they can't agree on any changes to the budget and appropriations. Spending is on autopilot. And your Representative was sent there with nothing to do because he can't increase or decrease spending on anything beyond what was established in Obama's first 100 days. And in the Senate, he can't even vote on a budget cause neither the president nor Senate Democrats have even proposed a budget in 4 years, as required by the Budget Act f 1974. OscarO 19:02, 11 January 2013 (EST)

The THOMAS link contradicts your claims. It shows that the President signed the continuing resolution (which is a form of appropriation law) on September 28, 2012. also whitehouse.gov Look at page 127 of this OMB reference source which says, "The Congress must present these CRs to the President for approval or veto." The spending levels were NOT based on "2011's continuing resolution" because the top line numbers were set in the Budget Control Act of 2011. It is true that budget resolutions are not laws and are not signed by the President because they are just internal instructions for the Congressional committees. A "budget resolution" is a form of "joint resolution of Congress" and nothing more. What counts are the appropriation bill(s). Your claim that "the president ... have even proposed a budget in 4 years" is false. E.g., 2013, 2009. The worst that you can say is that Obama submitted the budget a few days late,[5] but he definitely has submitted it each year. After reading your comments on Talk:Main_Page#CBO_just_released_estimates_on_the_.22Fiscal_Cliff.22_Deal as well as your subsequent comments here, I am worried that you are not understanding the sources that you are citing. Perhaps we can agree that the "spending authority" article can be restored to its 2008 content, and I will leave you alone to write whatever you want in the "backdoor spending authority" article, even if it is wrong. I want to get along with all CP editors, but there seems to be a fundamental problem here. Thanks, Wschact 01:55, 12 January 2013 (EST)

You're right, I misspoke on the Continuing Appropriations Resolution (elsewhere called the Continuation Appropriations Act). That was the debt increase deal that set up the fiscal cliff. Continuing Appropriations don't set budget parameters, they payoff the debts the agencies run up out the backdoor ex post facto. This is near the core of the issue: Repubs want to use Appropriations to get a handle on some forms of spending (discretionary spending); Harry Reid & the Dems use Appropriations to plug leaks authorized by executive agencies through the backdoor. OscarO 11:35, 12 January 2013 (EST)

As to the comment, "spending levels were NOT based on "2011's continuing resolution" because the top line numbers were set in the Budget Control Act of 2011"; technically true, but in the Budget Control Act of 2011 which set up the sequester, the numbers were based upon the previous CR. No major spending or revenue changes occurred in 2011. OscarO 11:52, 12 January 2013 (EST)

Everyone agrees that there is a US fiscal problem. We can improve the situation by CP providing accurate information. The Budget Control Act of 2011 set lower top line spending numbers and the sequestration. The act identified a specific set of budget cuts worth $1 trillion, and provided for sequestration which would cut an additional $1.2 trillion (over 10 years.) Your assumption about autopilot based on prior CRs is not correct. Also, all of these cuts deal with appropriated funds (discretionary spending). You are mistaken about "the agencies run up out the backdoor ex post facto." Agencies operating off of non-appropriate funds such as user fees in most cases do not drive up the national debt. However, "backdoor" is such a vague term that I am not certain which agencies you meant. Thanks, Wschact 13:23, 12 January 2013 (EST)

The Budget Control Act and sequestration were agreed upon, passed, and signed by the president; however implementation has been delayed 60 days, so even after passage and deadlines, backdoor spending on auto-pilot continues right now. And now, all cuts do not deal with just appropriated discretionary spending. The delay was due to the pain associated with cuts to mandatoryentitlement spending. Again, we're close to the nexus of dispute between Dems & Repubs, libs & conservs; conservatives believe elections and democratic representation in congress should allow for an elected member to act on spending control and deficits, but under current law, members of congress have little control over mandatory spending and deficits. OscarO 14:31, 12 January 2013 (EST)

{outdent}With all due respect, where are you getting this information? May I suggest that you read Bob Woodward's The Price of Politics for a detailed account of the 2011 negotiations? Read any summary of the Budget Control Act of 2011: the Act set the spending levels for FY 2012 and FY 2013 below the continuing resolution level of FY 2011. In addition, it required sequestration of an additional $1.2 trillion in mandatory savings effective January 1. The "fiscal cliff" law found enough revenue increases and budget cuts to fund a two month delay in the sequestration. (For example, the law cancelled the cost-of-living increase in Congressional salaries.) These cuts are effective immediately. So, your "autopilot" claim and other statements immediately above are not true. Are you willing to join me in a request to restore the "spending authority" article as a separate page? Thanks, Wschact 19:07, 12 January 2013 (EST)

You are correct there was some moderation in spending levels as a result of the 2010 midterms. But you're still claiming federal spending is determined by the appropriations process, and it's not; and the appropriations process pre-determines spending levels, and it does not. The appropriations process now just authorizes payment for spending that executive agencies have already have engaged in. Likewise you haven't addressed waiver of the Budget Act, which gave blank check authority to executive agencies and continues on autopilot through CR's. And allows both the president and Senate Dems to not only NOT propse a budget, but also our elected officials from voting on it. OscarO 19:33, 12 January 2013 (EST)

I have address that in prior comments. Please respond to my direct question: are you willing to see the protection on "spending authority" removed and the article restored to its 2008 version? Thanks, Wschact 19:37, 12 January 2013 (EST)

Show us where "backdoor" authority was re-defined in subsequent legislation after the 1974 Budget Act as something other than "spending authority", and you'd have a case. But I don't think it can be found. OscarO 19:59, 12 January 2013 (EST)

With all due respect, show me (with a US Code citation) where "backdoor authority" is defined in the statute. Thanks, Wschact 20:08, 12 January 2013 (EST)

So to sum up, the phrase is not used in the 1974 Act or any other statute, it is different from "spending authority", and you made up the term "backdoor spending authority." What objection to you have to restoring the "spending authority" article in the form that has been on CP since 2008? Wschact 22:16, 12 January 2013 (EST)

It's exactly as Rules Committee Chairwoman cited in the article describes, "defined in section 401(c)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended." OscarO 23:02, 12 January 2013 (EST)

Liberal claptrap added at $5 trillion to the national debt (1/3 of GDP) in just the last 4 years. don't you feel people have right to know how it was done? OscarO 23:23, 12 January 2013 (EST)

With all due respect, people have the right to know accurate information on the fiscal challenges. However, you are confused about "backdoor authority" adding $5 trillion to the national debt in the last 4 years. Trust funds and non-appropriated funds represent government spending that have separate revenue sources. In general, they do not contribute to the budget deficit. They are funded from user fees. (For example, when someone makes purchases at the Army base PX, money was spent to buy the merchandise, but the purchaser pays for what he buys.) The government collecting user fees helps the budget deficit, not hurts. This is taking far too much of Andy's valuable time. Let's resolve this by lifting the protection on "spending authority". Wschact 23:37, 12 January 2013 (EST)

I am sure you sincerely believe your answer, but it is not true. My personal opinion (which I will leave out of the articles) is that the Senate and the House cannot agree on "special instructions" so the Senate Republicans use a filibuster threat to prevent the full Senate from debating and voting on the annual budget resolution. The budget resolution, as you have agreed, is just a joint resolution of Congress. It is the appropriation bills that actually count, and the Senate Republicans have filibustered those as well, even when they pass the committee on a bipartisan 30-0. You are confusing cause and effect. The cause is politics, not the structure of spending authority. Government is so large that Congress should focus on what is important. The Army base restocking the PX with merchandise is not important and does not affect the budget and should be on "auto-pilot". Please don't confuse a concept with the bad results from it being possibly misapplied. Please don't confuse turf fights between the appropriations committees and the authorization committees with policy debates on the size of government. Write the article so that it is true at both the state and federal level, and if applicable the world. Now, how about lifting the protection on "spending authority"? Thanks, Wschact 09:23, 13 January 2013 (EST)

Wrong. The Budget cannot be filibustered. The Washington Post Fact Checker awarded Treasury Secretary-nominee Jack Lew its top award of four Pinocchios for fibbing on this canard. Also, while a PX operating at a loss or legislative pay raises may impact somewhere like New Zealand's operating deficit, I doubt if these items approximate .00001% of the US federal budget. It should not be too hard to check. But repeated references to such lame, miniscule, and obscure items show you haven't grasped even the broad outlines of the magnitude of the problem. I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but examine the numbers, and examine the facts seriously, for a moment. Thank you. OscarO 14:21, 13 January 2013 (EST)

I said that a "filibuster threat" not that they filibustered the actual resolution. There is too much hostage taking in Congress. Please stop changing the subject -- what objection do you have to a straight-forward "spending authority" article. If you want us to give credence to your undocumented personal analysis, please share with us your background and expertise? Are you a lawyer, have you worked for the federal government or are otherwise close the federal budget process? As I requested on the article talk page, please provide your sources for the claim that "tax expenditures" are within the definition of "backdoor" spending authority as they are not listed in 2 U.S.C Sec. 651. Thanks, Wschact 15:48, 13 January 2013 (EST)

Personally, I'm a veteran witness to the budget battles of the Reagan era which parallel today. Tip O'Neil controlled the House, Repubs the Senate, and neither could agree on a budget under the 1974 law. CR's were the rule. There have been many attempts at reforming the process, in 1985, then Gramm-Rudman, then the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, etc etc.; in the Gingrich-Clinton era the president used the Reagan model of effective government on the spending side but, refused tax reform. I'm disappointed the Repubs didn't take on serious spending and entitlement reform in the Bush-41 era, cause they have little to complain about now. But its all of us who suffer because of the accumulated screw ups and abuses of the past. And actions of the executive and Senate majority today only compound the problem. Boehner & company have done nothing to build a national consensus to seriously address these issues. People need some understanding how we got into this mess. OscarO 17:34, 13 January 2013 (EST)

Andy, it is time to reach a decision. Is CP going to have an accurate "spending authority" article (such as the one that was written in 2007 through 2008), or are we going to conflate a civics concept that is applicable at both the state and federal levels with the undocumented personal essay written over the last few days under the term "backdoor spending authority"? If you chose the latter, I will respect your decision and refrain from further remarks. Thanks, Wschact 12:57, 13 January 2013 (EST)

Andy, as they say, "The case is submitted." You can pick out the troll and decide which editor you want here at CP. We await your decision. Thanks, Wschact 17:58, 13 January 2013 (EST)

A couple of days ago, I presented on this talk-page an experiment for undergraduate students of natural sciences in which the classical Newtonian predictions for the mass and the impulse of fast-moving objects weren't applicable, but which was consistent with the predictions of the theory of Special Relativity.

You didn't tell us how this experiment is flawed, you just called it bizarre and asked me personally: August, please explain below any high school experiment that you think proves the formula.

Certainly you know that proof is for mathematics and whiskey only, but I stated an experiment which is performed at high-schools (or at least at German Gymnasia), and which relies in its mathematical description on Einstein's mass-energy-equivalence, i.e., E=mc². You are somewhat familiar with this experiment, at least you started an article about it a couple of years ago: Compton Scattering

Sports pages

Andy, there are a lot of pages for sports teams that have been added throughout the years by various users (myself included, if I'm not mistaken) which aren't kept up-to-date. I would take on the task, but given the sheer number of them and my limited time to edit, by the time I finished updating them they would need to be updated again. As opposed to plastering {{delete}} tags everywhere, is there any way that someone with the ability to delete pages can just purge them? -- JLauttamusTalk 08:37, 18 January 2013 (EST)

On another note, I don't see why it's necessary to have 10 stub articles on random Dancing with the Stars dancers and judges. All of the articles are one-sentence stubs that really have no relevance even if they were expanded. I hate to bombard your talk page, but I'd hate to spam templates on articles even more. -- JLauttamusTalk 09:26, 18 January 2013 (EST)

It may be easier to just remove the rosters, as those are the items that are out of date the most. Those that are embedded as templates can just be removed from the team in question. I am also a guilty party as it comes to the rosters. WesleySHello! 11:55, 18 January 2013 (EST)

People can see when the roster was current, like baseball cards showing statistics and status of players.--Andy Schlafly 23:11, 19 January 2013 (EST)

Banning of Jwill

On the Block log at 20:06 you will see I blocked User:Jwill. I based it on the edit below my block. However when I went to edit that page to advise Admins of the possible need for a deletion I found it would not let me edit it. I then had to leave the house and have just returned - it's about 11:30 AM here. (One day I will learn not to start a task here without knowing I have the time to finish it.) AlanE 19:40, 18 January 2013 (EST)

Cockcroft and Walton Experiment

I put my few questions regarding this experiment on the talk-page - I hope they will help you to explain the experiment as you intend to do. Creating and expanding the article may even show that you have the understanding of mathematics and physics necessary to talk about such things. Unfortunately, the first version of the article was all about rhetorics and not about physics - I hope you will improve this!

Link to infantile article on MPL

I made a couple of edits to Mark 1-8 (Translated), adding diacritics, missing words, etc. My edits were reverted in bulk by User:DouglasA. What I find disturbing is that my revisions were deleted: I had to restore some of the material from my personal back-up!

I'd appreciate to get an explanation for such methods - especially in light of your statement "Conservapedia supports free speech -- even by people we might disagree with. That's a big difference between conservatives and today's liberals"! And I don't like to get threadshints like "So you're aware, reverting admins without discussion is not okay.", neither! --AugustO 19:44, 23 January 2013 (EST)

Please, please, have a look at this mess! Thanks, --AugustO 15:25, 24 January 2013 (EST)

It is disturbing that after singlehandedly dismantling the contributions and insights of many others in that section of the CPB, you ignore admin instruction, and cannot be bothered to discuss your changes. You are not the translation project, your opinions do not trump those of all others, and it is not the duty of the entire rest of the community to spend its time acquiescing to your gripes on every issue, from language to physics. Since you insist on trying to dilute Conservapedia's politics and message, you should take it elsewhere. DouglasA 17:25, 24 January 2013 (EST)

It is disturbing that after singlehandedly dismantling the contributions and insights of many others in that section of the CPB, you ignore admin instruction, and cannot be bothered to discuss your changes This characterization isn't true. See Talk:Mark 1-8 (Translated).

You are not the translation project No, I'm not. But I'm willing to improve the project - and discuss any contribution to it!

your opinions do not trump those of all others Reading Conservapedia, I'm very well aware the my opinions do not trump those of others!

it is not the duty of the entire rest of the community to spend its time acquiescing to your gripes on every issue, from language to physics I'm willing to share my knowledge on a couple of subjects (including Greek and physics, but not many more).

since you insist on trying to dilute Conservapedia's politics and message, you should take it elsewhere. I don't think that I dilute Conservapedia's politics and message (neither Greek nor physics is generally about politics!). But again: "Conservapedia supports free speech -- even by people we might disagree with. That's a big difference between conservatives and today's liberals" For me you should take it elsewhere sounds like a thread - and that's not what I'd expect of a conservative on this site!

But when I looked at the long list of articles deleted by DouglasA, I saw that I wasn't alone. I was very unimpressed by his reasoning: articles get deleted for being creation of vandal trolls etc., but not for containing vandalism! A great batch of articles on astronomical subjects were deleted by him (Red dwarf, Aldebaran) for being creation of parodist, material thief - but all of these deletions were reverted by User:Karajou for being good material.

So I have to wonder whether subjects like Ramses II and Ra were good material, too! Certainly these articles are missing now.

I'm all for deleting spam and vandalism on the spot (I often mark such articles). But I'm against this kind of unilateral actions by one single administrator, creating a fait accompli.

And I still don't know why my revisions at Mark 1-8 (Translated) were not only undone, but deleted from memory - that just seems unnecessary!

And...the articles on three kings of England: Georges - I, II and III - were deleted. Two of them were subsequently restored but I had to request the restoration of the third only last week. All, I think, were started by an editor banned later for vandalism, but had been subsequently edited by Dr. Jensen so were impeccable in their veracity. A number of other articles I remember seeing over the years have been deleted, ostensibly because they were started by vandals, even though they had been through the mill of later edits. AlanE 00:15, 31 January 2013 (EST)

Hello there - I just happened to have a little free time today to peruse some talk pages and (to my surprise) noticed that my name came up here in this topic. I'd like to clarify two points: 1) I do not know why the page on Bill Bryson was deleted, but I did finally restore it, so all is well on that front. I didn't bring it to anyone's attention as I knew there are routinely many more important matters that need attending to, and just wrote it off as an unsolved mystery. Thank you to AugustO for updating the outdated reference links on the page. 2) Taj is a she, not a he. :-) Thanks & I hope the issues about deletions are being resolved to everyones satisfaction. Taj 00:41, 3 February 2013 (EST)

The article on Bill Bryson was just another example of a page being deleted without giving a valid reason - even after repeated and respectful inquiry for one. It seems that DouglasA isn't aware of his talk-page: a couple of users have asked him questions, but at the moment, no answer by him can be found at the page...

I didn't know that - thank you for the information, I'll keep it in mind!

Super Bowl adoption success story

Nothing ever got added to the main page about Michael Oher and Colin Kaepernick both being adoption success stories. One of them will win the Super Bowl tomorrow just as sure as Coach Harbaugh will - is this worth adding to the main page?

center tag is deprecated

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

I notice that you use the <center> tag a lot on Conservapedia's Main Page top section (which, I might add, might be a good idea to spin off into a separate template that can be transcluded onto the Main Page). The <center> is deprecated. Fortunately, there is a straightforward way to center text using the text-align property of CSS. As a specific example, you can change

<center>'''[[Mystery:Does God Have a Sense of Humor?|God Has a Sense of Humor]]: the lights go out on promoters of rationed energy at the [[Super Bowl]]'''</center>
<center>''The [[liberal media]] hype [[global warming]] controls for everyone else, so it is hilarious for them to lose energy''.</center>

to

<div style="text-align: center"><p>'''[[Mystery:Does God Have a Sense of Humor?|God Has a Sense of Humor]]: the lights go out on promoters of rationed energy at the [[Super Bowl]]'''</p>
<p>''The [[liberal media]] hype [[global warming]] controls for everyone else, so it is hilarious for them to lose energy''.</p></div>

Thanks for the thoughtful suggestion. But the new version seems more cumbersome from a coding perspective. Is that really an improvement?--Andy Schlafly 00:23, 4 February 2013 (EST)

Yes, the idea is to seperate semantics from style. It's a great improvement when coding an entire complex website. It doesn't really matter though for just one line. GregorSchmitt 14:24, 4 February 2013 (EST)

You should know the truth

Your inferior and insanely biased version of Wikipedia is utterly irrelevant in the large scheme of things, and you can rant about how President Obama is the epitome of all evil all day long, but it doesn't change the fact he's successful and you're not.

The only reason over 95% of the internet even bothers to look at this website is for amusement, because you are truly delusional if you think anyone derives serious educational benefit out of this biased cesspit of a website. Your Bible translation Desecration Project is a laughable joke and blasphemy against the very god you worship, and there is not a single liberal who considers you or anything produced by this website to be anything other than a massive joke.

Hate to be cruel here, but that's reality. It's a bitter pill to swallow, but it's the truth, and the book you love to quote so much says that truth will set you free.

Unlock request

Cockcroft and Walton Experiment

Two weeks ago, you started an article on the Cockcroft and Walton Experiment. I'd rather like you to elaborate the maths and physics involved! I added to the talk page my few questions for Aschlafly regarding this experiment, which you still haven't answered, but which should come handy in the examination of the experiment. This would be a nice opportunity to show that you have the necessary skills to talk about atomic physics on at least an undergraduate level. Thank you! --AugustO 15:26, 6 February 2013 (EST)

Stadium lights turning on quickly

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

Since you seem to be an expert on stadium electricity and lighting, perhaps you would share (1) your source for the lights at the Superdome being energy-rationed, (2) where you can find stadium lights that go from no power to full power instantaneously (my experience from gym class and marching band is that these sorts of lights do take 5-15 minutes to turn on completely), and (3) why liberals allowed two megawatt generators to be used during the halftime show. Thanks, GregG 01:03, 9 February 2013 (EST)

restored "Simply put, E=mc2 is liberal claptrap" and other truths

"Simply put, E=mc2 is liberal claptrap" is not a truth, it is a lie you repeat over and over again. As you said for yourself: You restate the claim as though its repetition would make it true.

If it were true, you would be able to give proof, show how liberals use this formula more often than conservatives, how it isn't used in conservative colleges and universities (and I don't mean the University of Berlin 1933-1945!), etc. You should be able to cite a couple of living physics (tenured ones don't have to be afraid for their job), who oppose the formula. BTW: even Robert Dicke had no problem with E=mc², he proposed an alternative to the general theory of relativity.

I don't know why you - as the founder of Conservapedia - constantly violate its own first commandment: Everything you post must be true and verifiable. Your edits on the page E=mc² don't show the necessary understanding of the physics and mathematics involved, you are not willing to answer even the simplest question on mathematics and physics (like A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton), and when you make statements on technical matters, they sometimes betray a ridiculous lack of insight, like this or this.

Andrew, are you aware of this picture? It popped up when I googled for images on Conservapedia.

Your might makes right approach isn't becoming for the article on E=mc²! You are reminding me of the eponymous character in Andersen's "The Emperor's New Clothes", only that in this version everyone from the very beginning is telling the emperor that he is naked, but he insists on parading through the streets nonetheless! --AugustO 22:31, 11 February 2013 (EST)

So if Hugo Chavez appeared in public, that would prove Einstein's theory, and that would be the end of the debate. Thank God. OscarO 00:45, 12 February 2013 (EST)

Perhaps you thought about Hugo Chavez as a kind of Schrödinger's Cat? Again, Andrew Schlafly, you're talking about politics, not about mathematics or physics. I get the impression that you know near to nothing about the mathematics and physics involved in the Theory of Relativity. Your introduction to the article on E=mc² is a monument of this ignorance. --AugustO 02:33, 12 February 2013 (EST)

Dear Andy, I have posted a proposed solution to the current editing impasse and would appreciate you giving it careful consideration. It is just one possible approach and would welcome hearing alternatives. Many thanks, Wschact 10:38, 12 February 2013 (EST)

No one answered my question: the liberal media and professors also insist that Hugo Chavez is alive and recovering. Must that be believed also?--Andy Schlafly 18:06, 13 February 2013 (EST)

Then allow me to retort. Most people would assume a given individual is alive until credible reports of their death surfaced. Just like I assume that you remain among the living between the gaps in your public appearances. Now feel free to parse through my response to look for a new way to divert this discussion from topic of E=mc². --DonnyC 18:17, 13 February 2013 (EST)

"Most people" would probably agree that Hugo Chavez likely died in Cuban hospital but authorities are denying it. My question, still unanswered, is this: must people believe the liberal denials by the media and professors? And amid the dozens of counterexamples to relativity, and lack of any logical explanation for the silly claim that "E=mc2", must people believe it if liberal professors insist on it??--Andy Schlafly 18:34, 13 February 2013 (EST)

No. There is no requirement for people to believe in the liberal denials by the media and professors. Just like there's no requirement for people to believe the collection of claims you seem to think refute SR and GR. Here's the deal, science produces empirical evidence that each of us is allowed to weigh. You're not putting forward any evidence, you're just attempting to swat down whatever evidence is presented to you. You've become some sort of twisted retelling of King Kong. You're confused and out of your element, so you've climbed the Conservapedia State building and are wildly swinging at the facts that are circling you. However, if you think your arguments are indeed valid and sound then do this: Walk into the physics department of your local university and tell them that E=mc2 is liberal claptrap because Hugo Chavez is dead and you don't get superhuman powers from eating cake. Oh, and bring a video camera with you. --DonnyC 19:06, 13 February 2013 (EST)

There is not even any logical basis for "E=mc2".--Andy Schlafly 19:24, 13 February 2013 (EST)

If a mathematical relationship fits the data, it can be accepted without a theoretical explanation. The E=mc² article shows that it meets the data. As for a logical explanation, I gave it before. Suppose you build two atom bombs, with the second atom bomb having twice as much uranium as the first. Would it be logical that when you measure the energy from blowing up the two bombs, you would expect the second bomb to have released twice as much energy as the first? Most people would say "yes." So, E is proportional to m. Now, the people responsible for defining the units in the metric system, decided that energy would be measured in "Joules". They also defined a "meter" to equal the distance traveled by light in vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second. So, the guys that defined units of measure rigged them so that to convert units of mass into units of energy, you must multiply by c2. There is no "logic" to this definition, it is an arbitrary decision to make the units work out. If they had defined the units some other way, we could walk around arguing about some other proportionality constant, say E=100m. Therefore, even if there are a lot of holes in the General theory of relativity, there is logic and experimental proof behind E=mc2. There are no religious implication to the equation, and there are no political implications to the equation. It is simple, and it is used in calculations regarding nuclear reactions. The only reason I spend time writing to you about it is that this fight is hurting the credibility of CP and all of the work we have done together here. Thanks, Wschact 01:22, 14 February 2013 (EST)

There is not even any logical basis for "E=mc2" What is the logical basis of - or even ? If you could answer this question, we would at least know what kind of logical basis you are looking for.

Could you show an experiments which violates E=mc²? You said that undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula. If you haven't made up this statement out of thin air, you should be able to cite such an experiment!

I thought the issue had been laid to rest, but you seem to be retreating ever farther from the reality that the rest of us occupy, so I'll give it another go. AugustO has complained repeatedly about your refusal to answer his questions, so, in all fairness, I should take your question seriously and answer it. Let me say that the reason I didn't answer it before is that it was so outlandish that I didn't believe it was serious. It seemed to be purely rhetorical, and rather silly. I apologize for not taking your questions seriously before; it's obviously something you feel strongly about. So, here goes. Your question is:

"Must that [the fact that the liberal media and professors also insist that Hugo Chavez is alive and recovering] be believed also?"

My answer, in a nutshell is:

No.

In more detail--I actually do not know, or care, whether Chavez is alive. (By the way, I've never heard a professor say anything one way or the other on the subject, but I'm not taking any PolySci courses. If you've heard professors address the topic, you have my condolences.) Now I've read many news reports, from what you no doubt call the mainstream/liberal/lamestream media, on the topics of Chavez's health, and Castro's health, etc. I don't know, or care, whether the various reports are true; I have no reason to believe they are lying, but it's OK with me. I don't care. There are many other domestic issues in the United States for me to care about.

But I have read quite a lot, throughout my life, about science, including nuclear physics, and E=mc^2. Enough that, unlike issues of Chavez's health, I am utterly convinced of the scientific truths behind this. This is not just reading a textbook or two, that could have been written by liars, or hearing a professor, who could be a liar. What I have heard and read goes into a consistent and integrated body of knowledge that I find utterly convincing. For it not to be true would require, well, ...... Let's see if I can distill it down to the essentials.

I believe that Radium, and Uranium, and all those other elements, exist. I hope you do, because you run a wiki that says so. I've read about many scientific experiments involving nuclear transformations, such as Radium decay, and the Cockcroft-Walton experiment, that seem to confirm E=mc^2. Were they all lies? Possibly. I've never done the Michelson-Morley experiment in my basement, or watched Radium decay, or watched Lithium transmutation. (Though I have heard the Geiger counter clicks from Uranium.)

Was this all lies? Well, let's see. I've read that, by the 1930's, E=mc^2 was so well established that scientists routinely used the atomic weight defects (the so called "packing fractions") to understand the energies of nuclear processes. Like Radium decay, or Cockcroft-Walton. The packing fraction graph, which you can see in many textbooks, and on Wikipedia, was well known. In fact, Lise Meitner had it approximately memorized. When she heard about the Uranium reaction experiments of Hahn and Strassmann, she analyzed it mentally, it while walking in the woods with her nephew Otto Frisch, with no books available. She worked out in her head that the Uranium had fissioned, and that, because of the packing fractions and E=mc^2, 200 MeV of energy (an enormous amount, even by nuclear standards) would be released.

Was all that a lie? Well, let's see. Shortly after her prediction was made, the 200 MeV of energy was in fact measured. The result is nuclear power plants. Their design depends on the calculation that Uranium fission releases that much energy. An enormous amount of electricity comes out. There are hundreds (thousands? whatever) of these power plants. They light up homes. I've never been inside a nuclear plant, but I've seen the cooling towers from a distance. But so much information is out there about the modern world, that I believe that this is so.

Do you believe that these houses are lit up by power from nuclear plants? Do you believe that the plants exist? Do you believe in conservation of energy? Do you believe that the energy comes from Uranium fission? Do you believe that that fission releases about 200 Mev per atom, as Lise Meitner predicted? Do you think that the thousands of people who used this information to design these plants were lying? Do you think the energy comes from some other source? What source? Do you think that the many thousands of people who work at these plants would be duped if the energy actually came from some other source?

Going back to the other controversies, do you believe that Hugo Chavez, whether presently alive or not, ever existed? Have you ever met him? How about Fidel Castro? Do you believe that Lise Meitner ever existed? Otto Hahn? Richard Feymann? Schrodinger? Heisenberg? Einstein? Leonardo? Newton? Galileo? Aristotle? Jesus? Just where are you trying to erect your wall of scepticism? You seem to be drawing it awfully close.

"Must people believe it [E=mc^2] if liberal professors insist on it??" Conservatives believe it too. A world view that denies it is really hard to construct in a logically sound way. But if you want to do it, fine.

I hope that this answers your question.

As far as the "logical explanation for the silly claim" that E=mc^2 is true, I suggest that you look at the Ameriwiki pages on Relativity, written by yours truly, to see a logical derivation. Of course, that was based on my many years of studying the subject and believing that all the things discussed above are true. I could be wrong, but you haven't convinced me.

As far as all the "counterexamples", I'm sure you know that every one of them is bogus. That page has nearly 2 million hits. I don't think those people are coming to get trustworthy information. Do you?

When I discussed the translation of ἰδοὺ in the Conservapedia Bible Project, I was the first time confronted with an absolute inadequate stile of argument: instead of scholarly sources, spurious claims on google counts were made, statements were made out of thin air, and the subject was kicked down the road by announcing answers which never came. In the end, Andrew Schlafly just stopped addressing the topic.

I observe something similar with the article on E=mc² - only that the points made are even worse: The liberal media and professors also insist that Hugo Chavez is alive and recovering. That makes E=mc² wrong how? Andrew Schlafly hasn't shown the slightest understanding of the mathematics or physics involved, and missed every opportunity to do so.

The article has become detrimental to Conservapedia: it is a monument of Andrew Schlafly's ignorance on this matter. If we (all the other editors interested in this subject) aren't allowed to align this article with reality, the next best thing would be to delete it. --AugustO 02:13, 13 February 2013 (EST)

Please, don't be too rude-after all, he founded the Trustworthy Encyclopedia. Unlike you, I've been here for mere days. You should know more about Internet etiquette then a newbie. If you are still going to advance your arguments, at least be polite.--PeterY 02:57, 13 February 2013 (EST)

Of course you are right: I should be polite. And I am: Unfortunately, it's not me who is rude, but reality - anyone with a little knowledge of physics and mathematics will be at best amused by the article, and stunned by the arguments made by Andrew Schlafly on the talk-page. Dragging Hugo Shavez into a discussion on the merits of the theory of special relativity is just surreal. If Andrew Schlafly wants to stop being the laughing stock of every visiting scientist, he should allow the article to be brought out of his fantasy land where even mathematical formulas have a political leaning! --AugustO 10:05, 13 February 2013 (EST)

Whats funny is that there were photos posted of Hugo Chavez reading this past thursdays newspaper[6]. Im sure, however, well hear the same excuses about realitys liberal bias. -EdgarP 11:26, 15 February 2013 (EST)

Many people make decisions on an emotional level, based on their "comfort zone." So for them, this dispute can be resolved on an appeal to emotion, if the above appeals to logic fail. On one side, I am told that E=mc² is liberal claptrap. This makes me very uncomfortable at the thought that people are designing nuclear power plants, atom smashing facilities, and nuclear bombs without the slightest idea of how much energy will be given off when they are put into use. I probably should stay away from the Radiology Dept of the local hospital or the gamma knife in the operating room, because we can't know how much power is in that radiation. I would also worry about the vast conspiracy of text book editors, physicists and even postage stamp designers who are promoting E=mc² for unknown motives. On the other side, I can join with liberals and conservatives who accept E=mc² as a summary of a variety of experimental data, and trust that the people who design nuclear power plants have a good idea of what is going on inside. If I find any beauty in E=mc², I can choose to take it as further evidence of God's work. If there is no specific Biblical reference foretelling E=mc², I still accept the Bible, because that one book is a spiritual roadmap that does not spell out every detail of every life. (When I obey the speed limit driving on U.S. 20, I accept it as a detail of life, even if it was not foretold in the Bible – E=mc² is just another detail of life.) Personally, I am more comfortable on the pro-E=mc² side and can only imagine the agony of the other side. Wschact 00:11, 15 February 2013 (EST)

Yes. There seems to be no real, consistent evidence of an E=mc² conspiracy. To give CP an appeal among professionals, some pages need to be cleaned up or just outright deleted.--PeterY 21:03, 15 February 2013 (EST)

And people can also falsely believe that Hugo Chavez is still alive because the media tell them so. Millions of people believe something simply if they see it said on television. But how does that bring anyone any closer to understanding the truth?--Andy Schlafly 22:35, 15 February 2013 (EST)

Not convincing. It's not that hard to digitally alter a photograph. Those photos could have easily been taken at an earlier date and later on altered to make it look like Chavez is reading a recently released newspaper. Alternatively, it could be a body double rather than the real Chavez. Take a look at this actor playing a gangster on HBO - while he and Chavez are not indistinguishable they do share some physical similarities and I'm sure there are people who are even more physically similar to Chavez. The person in the photos you posted could easily be a body double, and his already existing similarity to Chavez might have also been enhanced through makeup and/or digital means. - Markman 23:29, 15 February 2013 (EST)

@conservative The simple fact that he pictured in that image with a newspaper would strongly indicate that it is actually a body double/old image and they are trying to cover up his death. I would have thought a person of your intellect and political insight would have been able to pick this up. Dvergne 00:28, 16 February 2013 (EST)

I agree. Besides, nothing will convince those who believe Castro and Chavez are dead that they are wrong. A positive DNA test? They'll tell you it was tampered with. That's the beauty of conspiracy theories: any evidence to the contrary can be dismissed by simply shouting 'fabrication!'. Onestone 07:54, 16 February 2013 (EST)

This brings up a good question. Is there anyamount of evidence that Chavez or Castro are still alive that would convince Mr. Schalfly? Is he even slightly open to the idea that they just might possibly still be living, or has he decided 100% for sure that they have died? JamieW 11:50, 16 February 2013 (EST)

Two things: first, the images released purporting to show Chavez are showing someone whose ears aren't sticking out. And why couldn't video be released instead; why does it have to be still photos? Whether or not Chavez is alive is now the subject of speculation. Some of us believe he's alive, some believe he is dead, and still photos only create more controversy. Second, is there any amount of evidence that proves you're alive, JaimeW, or can we decide 100% for sure that you're little more than a lifeless bot? Karajou 14:13, 16 February 2013 (EST)

Still, JaimeW's question merits an answer: what kind of evidence would it take to convince you that Castro and Chavez are alive? Or is your conviction not falsifiable? Onestone 14:58, 16 February 2013 (EST)

Proof is not difficult. A video with voice would be fine. But none has ever been produced for Castro or Chavez since they checked into a hospital with very serious illnesses.--Andy Schlafly 15:32, 16 February 2013 (EST)

I notice that the New Zealand Government has not made any statement verifying the identity of Chavez. Their silence also speaks volumes, wouldn't you say Onestone? --DamianJohn 16:04, 16 February 2013 (EST)

That State Department link doesn't work, but in any case I'm not sure what "silence" from the State Department is supposed to signify. Are we supposed to assume that every world leader for which the State Department fails to issue a daily "this guy is alive" memo is actually dead? Other than silence, is there anyone who adheres to this "Chavez is dead" theory? As for the proof you desire, if we were to see a video of Chavez or Castro sometime in the next several weeks, would you admit you were wrong, or would you raise the bar and state that we were looking at convincing doubles or special effects, as you seem to have done for photographs? JamieW 21:29, 16 February 2013 (EST)

Let's go with Aschlafly's clearcut standard of proof: if a video shows up of Castro and/or Chavez speaking, he will accept he was wrong and amend the relevant articles accordingly. (Strange though that when it comes to Jesus' resurrection the demands for proof tend to be much more lenient.) Onestone 10:10, 17 February 2013 (EST)

Well I should have thought that anyone producing a video purporting to show a living Castro or Chavez would have the burden of proof to show that the video was genuine, and not dated back to an earlier time. As for Jesus, well the situation is obviously distinct because we have many other forms of proof for His resurrection. --DamianJohn 18:47, 17 February 2013 (EST)

Very well put. And with respect to Jesus, there was no incentive to lie about the Resurrection. There is an enormous incentive for communists in power to lie about Castro and Chavez.--Andy Schlafly 20:08, 17 February 2013 (EST)

Economics Course

I see on the Educational Index that an economics couse is beginning on February 21st. I've never taken a course in economics and would love to participate. Will this course be available online? Thanks. --JustinD 16:36, 15 February 2013 (EST)

Yes, and online participation in the Economics course is welcome! This will be the fourth time I've taught this course.--Andy Schlafly 20:56, 15 February 2013 (EST)

Terrific, thanks. Is there a schedule or somewhere I should follow to keep on top of the reading and assignments? I'm not the best self-motivator and it would help to work along with the rest of the class. Thanks again! --JustinD 23:16, 15 February 2013 (EST)

So, the economics course is set to begin tomorrow, but as an online user, I'm unclear what I should do. Is there a reading assignment? Homework? If this is more of a self-guided course, that's fine, but I got the impression there would be some amount of instruction. Thanks. --JustinD 19:55, 20 February 2013 (EST)

DonnyC

Seeing his incessant trolling, I decided to give DonnyC an infinite ban, but DamianJohn saw it more fit to shorten his ban to 2 days. I personally think that DonnyC should not be allowed on this site anymore, seeing that he has received several warnings regarding his disruptive behavior and yet did not stop. Prior to my ban he has received four bans for reasons such as trolling, 90/10 rule violation and spamming. I refer this matter to you and will uphold whatever decision you reach. - Markman 23:18, 15 February 2013 (EST)

Meh, DonnyC is alright. Sure he gives it to Andy a bit, but then Andy has argued in front of Supreme Courts - I'm sure he can handle it. Frankly I think that the website has so few editors as it is we shouldn't be scaring people away all the time. I do think that the atmosphere has changed here significantly since July 2012 and there is no need to give infinite bans for this sort of thing. A couple of days and a warning to try to be a bit more constructive in future is the way to go. --DamianJohn 23:45, 15 February 2013 (EST)

Excellent suggestion. I just deleted the file as being redundant.--Andy Schlafly 20:02, 16 February 2013 (EST)

Thanks. I'll keep an eye out for any other redundant templates (it's amazing how much programming capability is available through MediaWiki keywords and template transclusion). GregG 20:12, 16 February 2013 (EST)

Rollback

Hi, would it be possible for you to give me rollback privileges? It would make cleaning up after the vandals a lot easier. Cheers, Dvergne 03:31, 17 February 2013 (EST)

Video games: the bigger picture?

Hi Andy,

I've been giving this subject a lot of thought lately, and I wanted to get your opinion. It seems to me that criticism of the detrimental effects of violent video games, while valid, is insufficient. I think it's entirely possible to draw a causal link between video games and other negative consequences, as well.

Children today are spending an ever-increasing percentage of their free time playing video games. As the games become more complex and more elaborate, they demand more and more of an investment of time. The advent of application-based games that can be played from smartphones has increased this total further still.

While a few of these games may have educational value, I don't think anyone would seriously argue the point that the chaff far outweighs the wheat; for every video game with beneficial content, there are likely a dozen mindless shoot-em-ups. Moreover, the amount of time being spent on such games is alarming, regardless of their content, because it presents a cost-of-opportunity problem.

We lament the appalling lack of knowledge in students today. Most particularly, their lack of cultural capital is alarming; many young people are almost wholly ignorant of the thoughts and works which underpin our culture and society. This isn't simply a case of, say, not remembering whether the Sermon on the Mount is in Matthew or Mark; it's a matter of not recognizing the names Adam and Eve.

How was it that children three generations ago could be reasonably expected to know such things, whereas children today do not? I would suggest that at least part of the problem is that, even though children today have large amounts of free time, that free time is not infinite. Time that was spent in the past on reading the Bible and other foundational works critical to our culture is now spent on video games and other electronic media.

You have been an influential voice on this issue; should Conservapedia have an article dedicated to a detailed analysis of the detrimental effects of video games on society? --Benp 11:45, 18 February 2013 (EST)

Ben, your comments are spot on. A new entry detailing the enormous secondary harms of video game addiction would be tremendous.

I think some liberals promote and defend video games because of how they lead to ignorance, which results in more votes for Democrats -- similar to how liberals are just fine with millions not being able to read.--Andy Schlafly 12:55, 18 February 2013 (EST)

Liberals want people to avoid "conservative" information sources, because unbiased information can generally be found there. In the 1960s, when my parents were studying at Harvard University, I found almost everyone I met in Cambridge believed the Communist viewpoint on the Vietnam War. It was only when I discovered an article in Reader's Digest that I realized there even was another viewpoint. --Ed PoorTalk 13:10, 18 February 2013 (EST)

As someone who does play video games and read a lot about the industry, I'd just like to chip in. A lot of people involved in video games are trying to improve them as a medium. We don't want people to hear video games and think something relatively mindless and with little redeeming value, like "Call of Duty" or whatnot. Our (I am not actually part of the industry, I use the term to designate those interested in the progression of the medium)main problem right now is that mindless shooters tend to be where the most money is when selling to a general public market. Many people would much rather make a game with deeper meaning or artistic merit--a prime example of this would be "Journey"--the problem is that it is easy and profitable to make a shooter. Just my 2cents.--DTSavage 20:18, 20 February 2013 (EST)

Help please

Could you please undo user:Caker's contributions?

Could you give me rollback privileges so I can sort out things like this myself?

Conservapedia in French

I am a Conservative high schooler about to go to college. I speak nearly fluent French in multiple dialects (French, Belgian, Québecois, Acadian, Chiac, Cajun) and I think that Conservapedia can and should be translated into other languages, including French (the second most-studied language in the world and the language spoken in the most nations) since many issues pressing to all peoples are inadequately covered on Wikipedia in other languages. If possible, I would like to aid in the translation process for French, that we may spread the cause of freedom worldwide. If you agree, please email me and I will get to work. All you would need to do is add a button on the sidebar for those pages that are translated.
Thank you!
Staddenh is my username

Efraín Ríos Montt

The article Efraín Ríos Montt is liberal and has no references. I suggest it for delation. --Alex00 09:26, 22 February 2013 (EST)

It appears to be encyclopedic. Is there any problem with the entry?--Andy Schlafly 09:45, 22 February 2013 (EST)

Best of the Public movie

Hi Andy, I thought you might enjoy this movie concerning a homeschooled fundamentalist Christian engineer, who as part of the Best of the Public triumphed in the face of liberal politicians, self-proclaimed "experts", and gave glory to God for his achievements. It's by the liberal BBC and has Arabic subtitles for some reason, but you will enjoy it:

Your thoughts on American Express v. Italian Colors?

Oral arguments are scheduled for Wednesday, and this case, a sequel to Concepcion, looks like it's going to have a big impact on how Concepcion is going to be interpreted in the lower courts. As a lawyer, do you have any thoughts about this case? GregG 19:48, 23 February 2013 (EST)

That's a very long-running case about the enforceability of arbitration provisions. It's pretty arcane stuff. Too bad the Supreme Court doesn't spend more time on more important cases, such as social issues.--Andy Schlafly 20:22, 23 February 2013 (EST)

A question regarding the 90/10 rule

Hey, I got a question about the 90/10 rule. I know that it's supposed to prevent people from engaging in excessive talk page editing, but does this rule apply to excessive editing of debate pages? Suppose that we have a user who does nothing but edit debate pages, is he in violation of the 90/10 rule? - Markman 10:09, 24 February 2013 (EST)

Repeatedly editing only talk pages, including debate pages, without any substantive or encyclopedic edits, is contrary to the 90/10 rule and could justify a blocking of the account.--Andy Schlafly 10:53, 24 February 2013 (EST)

Greg Abbott and Fisher v. University of Texas Affirmative Action case

Hi, I am a conservative from Texas. Greg Abbott is not really a conservative, at least when it comes to the issue of affirmative action. He did argue in favor of the University of Texas in defending affirmative action at the Austin campus that it believes it can implement because of Grutter. [7][8]BenCG 13:33, 24 February 2013 (EST)

Castro

I don't know why you have such a closed mind about this, or why you fail to follow basic logic. There are many sources that testify to Fidel Castro's continued life, including his Holiness the Pope. You seem to be the only person on the planet who believes otherwise. This is no longer a noble attempt to expose the truth: it is now a rather stupid campaign to ignore the obvious. Please provide proof that Castro is dead or desist from this pointless argument. RobertE 17:24, 24 February 2013 (EST)

You've got to be kidding. More than six years after a very sick Castro "vanished" in a Cuban hospital, he has not made a single public appearance with sound. It's not because he's sick, because Cuban communists claim he has been in robust health.--Andy Schlafly 00:29, 25 February 2013 (EST)

It amazes how you criticize Andy for being close minded when you uncritically accept every story you hear on the mainstream media. - Markman 13:44, 25 February 2013 (EST)

Exodus 34

Hey,

I just wanted to let you know that I've finished translating Exodus 34. I'm pretty new to the Conservative Bible Project so I would like you to give me your input on my work, tell me if there's anything wrong with it and if there's something I need to improve.

I know that one point of the project is to remove inclusive language which was inapporopriately inserted by previous translators. One example of inclusive language I noticed is the phrase "children of Israel". In the Old Testament, the Hebrew words which are usually translated as children of Israel are "Bnei Israel". The word "Bnei" means specifically "sons of", not "children of". Therefore I have replaced "children of Israel" with "sons of Israel". If you'll approve of this line of translation, I will go over the rest of the portions of the Old Testament that so far have been translated and will replace children of Israel with sons of Israel. - Markman 13:44, 25 February 2013 (EST)

That's a fantastic improvement, changing "children of Israel" to the more precise "sons of Israel." Please do correct that wherever you see it. The incorrect switch from "sons" to "children" has the liberal effect of belittling the Bible into a story for children, which is incorrect.

That seems to limit the OT notion of the Jewish People to men, clearly a major change that should not be taken lightly. B'nai is used like male pronouns in English: the plural when gender is not known. For example, synagogues announce Bar Mitzvahs (of boys), Bat Mitzvahs (of girls) and B'nai Mitzvahs (when there are both). Google b'nai mitzvah to confirm this. I fail to see how it's conservative to defend against such abberations as "s/he" in English but liberal to recognize male-default constructions in the Bible.

I'd add that Exodus 35:29 includes "The children of Israel brought a willing offering unto the LORD, every man and woman..." Here it's explicit that "b'nei" is used to cover both genders. "Sons" here will make for an odd translation unless "every man and woman" is deleted. MelH 18:28, 25 February 2013 (EST)

Part of the problem is that "children" connotes non-adults, which is not what the Bible means with "The children of Israel brought a willing offering unto the LORD, every man and woman..." Perhaps "children" could be better translated as "people" in that verse?--Andy Schlafly 20:14, 25 February 2013 (EST)--Andy Schlafly 20:14, 25 February 2013 (EST)

Other translations use "Israelites" for b'nei yisrael. This would seem to avoid a lot of problems. MelH 20:36, 25 February 2013 (EST)

Biblical Hebrew is very difficult to translate directly into English, since it has grammatical rules that have no English equivalent. One of the major differences is the way Hebrew treats singular and plural forms. Hebrew often makes use of the plural form of a word, even when referring to a singular object (this is often done to imply greatness or value). Not to mention that ancient Hebrew did not make use of vowels, so even a native speaker would not always know what word was meant without taking the full passage into context. From what little I know, "b'nei" can litterally mean "sons" but is most commonly used as the unisex noun for all children. "Banim" specifically means a group of male children, while "banot" is for a group of daughters. Even still, "banim" often gets translated as "children". I think you should tread with caution and take it on a passage-by-passage basis. --DonnyC 20:51, 25 February 2013 (EST)

This translation is plainly a self-contradiction: "The children of Israel brought a willing offering unto the LORD, every man and woman..." "Children" did not make the offering.--Andy Schlafly 21:32, 25 February 2013 (EST)

Of course. "Children of Israel" is a poetic (in the Hebrew) construction meaning "descendants of Jacob." The poetic sense is carried into the KJV English. That aspect (literal children vs. descendants) is separate from the gender issue (males only vs. "people"). "Israelites" sacrifices the poetry for a less ambiguous term. Note that before Sinai, the Israelites are not yet the Jewish nation. The sojourn in Egypt and the 40 years of wandering forged the Jewish people. That's why "Israelite" (descendant of Jacob, aka Israel) is accurate in Exodus where "Jew" wouldn't be. MelH 22:32, 25 February 2013 (EST)

"Of course. "Children of Israel" is a poetic (in the Hebrew) construction meaning "descendants of Jacob."" Indeed, but the use of the word "Bnei" (sons) in the original text supports conservatism, unlike any translation which uses a sex neutral word. Sons of Israel is indeed only a title at the point of history which Exodus chronicles, as by that time all the original twelve sons of Jacob were already deceased. My suggestion - every time the phrase Bnei Israel appears as a title (in contrast to an actual reference to the sons of Jacob) we will translate it as Sons of Israel and make sure the word "Sons" is capitalized. That way the reader will understand it's a title rather than a reference to the actual sons of Jacob. As a final precaution, perhaps we could attach to the final version of the Conservative Bible an introduction which will explain our decisions regarding translation and wording. - Markman 22:46, 25 February 2013 (EST)

So you'll go with "The Sons of Israel brought a willing offering unto the LORD, every man and woman..." and explain it in an intro? MelH 22:52, 25 February 2013 (EST)

Yes. The capitalization of the word "Sons" already says it's a title. Take a look at the Jewish congregation Sons of Israel. I don't think anybody believes that it's a male only congregation just because of it's name, and I'll say the same thing regarding the organization Sons of Norway. - Markman 22:58, 25 February 2013 (EST)

Similarly, the terms "Chairman" and "Congressman" include men and women.--Andy Schlafly 23:34, 25 February 2013 (EST)

Just like the term "kids" may refer to both female and male children... and baby goats. --DonnyC 05:25, 26 February 2013 (EST)

Since I don't see any further objections to my proposed translation policy (DonnyC's petty snark doesn't count), I'm going to start and apply it to the rest of the Old Testament that has already been translated. A note to editors who wish to help with this mission: there are a few instances in the OT in which "bnei Israel" does refer to the literal sons of Jacob. In such instances do not capitalize the word "sons". - Markman 06:43, 26 February 2013 (EST)

After scanning all the parts of the OT translated by the volunteers of the Conservative Bible Project, I'm happy to announce that all instances of the phrase "children of Israel" have been excised. - Markman 07:29, 27 February 2013 (EST)

That's a significant improvement to modern translations of Exodus!--Andy Schlafly 12:01, 27 February 2013 (EST)

Markman, I'll admit that some of these subtleties go over my head, but I notice you changed "lambs of the first year" to "sheep" in Exodus 29:38. Since the Hebrew is quite explicit that these are to be young sheep (which we call lambs), I wonder what is gained by discarding that information. "Lamb" has rich Biblical symbolism, and I could see this change having unintended consequences. I would hope that this doesn't presage "Sheep of God," for instance. MelH 17:35, 28 February 2013 (EST)

The word which was translated by me into sheep (and to lamb by the KJV) was "keves" (כבש). Keves does not denote any age and can refer to all sheep regardless of whether or not they're mature. Since those verses didn't use the Hebrew word for lamb ("tale" טלה) I decided to translate it into sheep. When choosing between lamb or sheep one must consult the original text. For example, when young sheep are mentioned in 1 Samuel, they should be referred to as lamb in the translation, since Samuel does use the word "tale". [I posted this text on MelH's talk page after he pointed out that I haven't replied to him yet because I missed the edit above. Replicated here for other people's benefits] - Markman 12:37, 4 March 2013 (EST)

Headline news suggestion

Hi Andy, I can see that you're in charge of the news (especially the banner headlines) so I thought I'd suggest this idea on your talk page. I've noticed that when a main headline disappears it does so for good, and I think it'd be a good idea if it dropped into the "in the news" section instead. I say this as there's been once or twice I've gone to look, for whatever reason, for an old headline again and have been unable to find it. What do you think? Just a simple idea really. Regards, RyanFT 07:55, 26 February 2013 (EST)

E=mc² again...

Andrew Schlafly, you undid my edit to E=mc², claiming that you were restoring information. But even you must have seen that the restored section titled E=mc2Doesn’t Compute is utter nonsense. It states:

E=mc2 Doesn’t Compute because the quantities assigned to units of measurement (seconds, kilometres and kilograms), were randomly chosen by humans and thus cannot validate the tangible energy of a given mass designed in nature. Because random values cannot validate the tangible, the result of E=mc2 is abstract and so meaningless. E=mc2 Doesn’t Compute by Grey:

The reasoning behind this thought is very poor (see here), and the whole section is an attempt on link-farming.

As for you original contributions: I came to the conviction that you don't defend them at the talk-page as they cannot be substantiated in any way. So they only resort (instead of arguing their physical or mathematical merits) is to crowbar them into the article via your edit war - a war you'll win not by having the better arguments, but by abusing your powers. In my opinion that is very sad... --AugustO 14:37, 28 February 2013 (EST)

I'm not going to get into this argument since I don't know too much about physics (though from what I can see Andy's position seems to make sense). I'm only editing here because I want to ask Andy to protect the page E=mc² and limit users other than administrators from editing it. AugustO is constantly removing info from the article, and I while try to revert his edits there's only a limit of what I can do since I lack the ability to lock pages. - Markman 15:39, 28 February 2013 (EST)

When you were restoring full introduction to E=mc² the last time, you dropped the section which I've have criticized above. So at least you are still reading what I'm writing, though you don't acknowledge this fact by deigning a direct answer.

Get help! You are way over you head when you try to edit articles on advanced physics or mathematics. I checked the list of administrators: at least two of them should be qualified to help you: User:RSchlafly and User:PhyllisS. RSchlafly even states that he is a relative of yours, so you should be able to contact him off-wiki if you prefer to avoid a public schooling.

You don't explain your edits. You don't answer to questions (like my few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton). How should a high-school pupil who read your ideas and incorporates them in a homework or something like that be able to defend them? I trust Andrew Schlafly won't work! If you are not willing to defend your ideas in this sheltered environment, what chance do they have out there in the market-place of ideas?

If you prefer uninformed obedience over critical thinking, go ahead, get edits which have been discussed on the talk-page reverted by your followers who even admit that they don't know what they are doing - a kind of Andy knows best policy. You could even protect the article. It is a pity that you have take resort in what is ultimately a bully tactic: ignoring all edits by others and disregarding their arguments on talk-pages while insisting that your own version of the article is the only true one, without giving a shred of evidence.

In a meritocracy, edits should be judged by their merits: Are they true? Are they verifiable? If edits are allowed to stay not because they are correct, but because the person of highest authority wishes them to be regarded as true, it's just a tyranny.

No other editor is able to explain the mathematics of physics of your edits. You are not able to do so. Therefore keeping the article in the shape which you prefer is just edit-warring. An editor without additional rights would get blocked for such a behavior.

For example, Robert Dicke, perhaps the greatest physicist of the 20th century, was denied a Nobel Prize because he doubted the Theory of Relativity.Robert Dicke had no problem with the special theory of relativity, but tweaked the general theory of relativity. To quote Robert Dicke in his Joseph Henry lecture on April 18, 1958:

For it is characteristic for Einstein's genius that he was able to construct a theory of gravitation which seemed to work and was esthetically satisfying. He was able to account for a small discrepancy observed in the orbit of Mercury as computed from Newton's laws. Further, his theory predicted an anomalous deflection of light by gravity, and this was later observed.

Have a look at Robert Dicke's work: You will find nothing but praise from Robert Dicke for Einstein's 1905 paper on special relativity! This greatest physicist of the 20th century would have laughed at your rejection of E=mc².

But light has never been unified with matter despite more than a billion-dollars-worth of attempts, and it is likely impossible to ever do so. Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge predicts that there is no unified theory of light and matter because they were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis. This is a total misunderstanding: no one tries to unify matter and light. But it is generally accepted that photons (light) behave as having a mass

Mass is a measure of an object's inertia, in other words its resistance to acceleration. That's a half-truth: there is inertial mass and gravitational mass. Einstein claimed in his works on gravity (since 1916) that both are equivalent, Dicke said that such an equivalence wasn't necessary. In fact, determining this equivalence made up a great part of Dicke's work!

Liberal scientists assert the formula E=mc² is not limited to nuclear reactions; it applies to chemical reactions and even to the energy stored in a compressed spring. Another half truth, as conservative scientists assert this applicability, too. All agree that it is hardly measurable.

In contrast, the intrinsic energy of an object (such as an atom) is a function of electrostatic charge and other non-inertial forces, having nothing to do with gravity. Declaring the object's energy to be a function of inertia rather than electrostatics is an absurd and impossible attempt to unify the forces of nature, contrary to the accepted view (as predicted by Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge) that the forces of nature have not been unified. This may neither be a half-truth nor a falsehood. It is just not understandable.

In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (i.e., gravity) with the laws governing light (i.e., electromagnetism), and numerous attempts to derive E=mc² in general from first principles have failed is true, but you regularly delete the following half-sentence though there are many derivations for special cases and experimental verifications. Why? Some of these cases and experimental verifications can be found in the article and on the talk-page!

Simply put, E=mc² is liberal claptrap. This is just your personal opinion, it doesn't follow from anything stated in the article.

All these objections (and more!) have been stated on the talk-page for many times. But instead of answering to them, you just revert any insightful edit: though you said that edits should be suggested on the talk-page, you don't comment on such suggestions. The only reason the article is kept in the current state is your use of brute force: you don't answer to objections, you just ignore them and revert any edit. That is intellectually dishonest. Even worse is that you abuse the loyalty of editors like User:Markman: in his sense of obedience to you he is compelled to delete any edit to the article not explicitly approved by you though he doesn't know whether your reasoning is correct or not. I don't find this situation acceptable.

I expect you, Andrew Schlafly, to address the points above. Until than, I'll out-comment them, as they cast a bad light on Conservapedia: this should be an encyclopedia, a work of collaboration, and not your personal blog. When Bobby Jindal said in January 2013 that the GOP mus stop being the stupid party, one has to wonder whether he had just read this article of yours.

I want to emphasize what AugustO said about this dispute has "cast a bad light on Conservapedia." If someone has a unique perspective or insight into the problems of general relativity, it would be better to express them on a debate page or the general relativity article. Andrew Schlafly's changes to the E=mc² page creates the impression that the CP community as a whole does not understand that equation and does not understand the difference between special relativity and general relativity. Could we please come to some reasonable resolution of this unfortunate misunderstanding? Many thanks! Wschact 04:04, 4 March 2013 (EST)

re:Great Blocks

Thanks, next time I will use that warning. - Markman 09:12, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Andrew Schlafly, you haven't answered to any suggestion made to Talk:E=mc² since Feb 11, 2013. Your only action is to revert edits made to E=mc². Your behavior is disappointing, you don't defend your ideas, you conserve the current state of the article just by fiat, thereby cementing the appearance of ignorance and idiocy which was summarized in the net under Conservapedia - where intelligence goes to die.

Ignoring those who want to improve the article and refusing to discuss your ideas is such a cowardly move that I never expected it from you: you are reminding me of a toddler who hides under his blanket, waiting for reality to go away...

This tactic may even work in the short range: your critics may get frustrated, editors like I become disillusioned and will edit less and less, someone else will say something even more stupid somewhere in the net and will divert the attention from this article, etc. But unfortunately for you, reality is there to stay...

AugustO, this isn't even a close question. E=mc² is an absurdity, the epitome of liberal claptrap. No Nobel Prize ever has been granted, or ever will, for verification of the nonsensical formula. The equation lacks any logical basis whatsoever.--Andy Schlafly 12:26, 5 March 2013 (EST)

Andrew Schlafly, that is not even close to an answer. I get it that you have strong convictions on this matter, but you have no facts - as this comment of yours proves again. Really, when did the first of the Conservapedia:Commandments change from Everything you post must be true and verifiable to Everything you post must ring true to Andrew Schlafly?

AugustO, this isn't even a close question. You are right, it isn't. Virtually all physicists agree that E=mc² is a valid formula with a wide range of applicability. You yourself made it into an open question!

E=mc² is an absurdity, the epitome of liberal claptrap. Again, just your personal opinion, without any shred of evidence.

No Nobel Prize ever has been granted, or ever will So what? You have often claimed that the prize is politicized. That was true in the 1910s as well as in the 1960s.

The equation lacks any logical basis whatsoever If you think that physics is about a logical basis, you are off a couple of millenia: Archimedes tried it that way. But Roger Bacon said: the strongest arguments prove nothing so long as the conclusions are not verified by experience.

Let's assume that it is possible that either view could be correct: (1) that general relativity is unproven "liberal claptrap" or (2) that experimental data drawn from both particle accelerator studies and nuclear fusion and fission have confirmed E=mc². What is best for the Conservapedia project? In my opinion, speculation about general relativity should be kept out of the E=mc² article. Andy has a chance to show real leadership here by allowing editors who have not taken part in the debate to sort out a solution to this problem. Thanks, Wschact 10:38, 6 March 2013 (EST)

Personal photos of Fidel Castro on his article

Good day,

I was looking at the article on Fidel Castro and the only photo of him in there is pretty outdated, from Castro's looks I'd say it was taken in the 50's or 60's. I was thinking if maybe we should put a picture of Castro from his later years. I was searching for the most recent photos of Castro before his death (and just to be clear I believe that he died no later than a couple of weeks after his hospitalization) and found this. If you scroll down you can see a picture of Castro taken on July 26, 2006, just a couple of days before his hospitalization. I would have liked to upload it, but since my user account doesn't have the ability to upload images I ask you to consider doing it. Sorry for nagging you about this, if I was capable of doing it myself I wouldn't have bothered you.

The NPR page has several Castro photos, but rights appear to be reserved for all of them. They do not appear to be in the public domain.

People's faces do not change much over the years. Older photos suffice to recognize differences with stand-ins. The fact that stand-ins wear big scarfs to conceal their younger necks, despite hot weather, is evidence enough.--Andy Schlafly 15:36, 5 March 2013 (EST)

By saying "The fact that stand-ins wear big scarfs to conceal their younger necks, despite hot weather, is evidence enough" you assume (Castro has been replaced by stand-ins) what you claim to prove (Castro has been replaced by stand-ins). It's like saying "The fact that God created the heavens and the earth is evidence enough that He exists." Also, many elderly people wear scarfs to conceal their wrinkled necks. Onestone 08:42, 6 March 2013 (EST)

Liberal Media finally admit Chavez is dead

[9] I guess they couldn't keep denying it forever. I wonder what the post mortem will say (or what they say it says)? --DamianJohn 17:11, 5 March 2013 (EST)

Superb tip. And, DamianJohn, you deserve a lot of credit for your astute comments on this issue.--Andy Schlafly 17:38, 5 March 2013 (EST)

Well you know, I thought it was pretty obvious months ago that Chavez had very likely died. Castro as well. There is almost a pathological denialism involved in some sections of the media. Personally I think these regimes should just come out and admit these things - It's just further evidence that Venezuela and Cuba are singing off the same songsheet. --DamianJohn 17:44, 5 March 2013 (EST)

I see that Venezuela are now blaming enemies "both foreign and domestic" of poisoning Chavez. Congratulations to the CIA for being able to synthesize cancer!!! Quite an achievement, :) [10] --DamianJohn 17:50, 5 March 2013 (EST)

On a related note, with no prior prejudice myself, why would Venezuela and the liberal media cover up his death? Is it because of the instability it would bring to the region, or Chavez' position as a socialist idol? Or is it something more sinister?

P.S. Can you give me some artcles to work on? I'm a new user. AdeH 00:25, 7 March 2013 (EST)

Liberals are on the same side of the political spectrum as Hugo Chavez, so liberals are not likely to tell the truth about his death. As to articles to work on, topics related to current events or an area of your expertise would be welcome.--Andy Schlafly 19:29, 7 March 2013 (EST)

There are limitations on use of that photo, which make it not worth the trouble for the relatively obscure figure.--Andy Schlafly 12:49, 11 March 2013 (EDT)

Arinze won't become pope

I notice to you the post that I have written on the talk page of cardinal Arinze, explaining why he won't become pope at all, I assume that since nobody answered me and you kept uphelding that Arinze will be elected on the main page's head... you didn't read it. --Swordsman 12:52, 13 March 2013 (EDT)

CPAC straw poll results

Mr. Schlafly, your headline for the CPAC straw poll contains the line "...as the older RINOs strike out.", is this meant to imply that you believe that the other candidates under consideration were RINOs? If that's the case, I couldn't help but notice that of the other 22 candidates on the ballot, only 2 appear on our RINO list here at Conservapedia (Chris Christie and Mitch Daniels). Would you like me to add the other names to the list? --DonnyC 19:58, 16 March 2013 (EDT)

No, the headline doesn't mean that every non-winner is a RINO. It means the RINO faction of the party struck out, including critics of Rand Paul and folks like Mitt Romney.--Andy Schlafly 22:03, 16 March 2013 (EDT)

Bullied and banned by liberal sysop for speaking the truth.

On the Steubenville rape case page, I, BenCG, correctly pointed out that the rape case was stalled by local Democrat officials, only to have justice brought by the Republicans at the state level. Apparently I offended the liberal sensibilities of liberal evolutionist and atheist User:Brenden. I can understand dealing with liberal bias and ignorance on Wikipedia. But to have to deal with it on Conservapedia at the behest of liberal sysops is disgusting. Brenden refuses to accept the facts surrounding the Steubenville rape case and, like an atheist, refuses to accept credit given to Republican AG Mike DeWine for his good, Godly work in bringing the perpetrators to justice. BenCG2 14:16, 18 March 2013 (EDT)

Username Change

Hi Andy, would you be able to change my username to DickV so as I conform with the first name, last initial policy ? Cheers. 09:22, 19 March 2013 (EDT)

That's unnecessary at this point - the policy is for users who have not made substantive edits.--Andy Schlafly 09:28, 19 March 2013 (EDT)

Andy, the users who have not made substantive edits are the ones that get burned by the rule! You probably know that Mr. V, along with another of others, are occasionally beaten up for the appearance (emphasis on appearance) of hypocrisy in blocking people over the naming rule while not himself complying with it. He was simply lucky that no one was zealous in applying the rule when he was new. He is making a good-faith effort to fix this appearance of hypocrisy. Please let him do so. SamHB 22:47, 19 March 2013 (EDT)

I must admit I always assumed Vergne was the surname. Still if someone wants to change their name it can do no harm can it? --DamianJohn 22:51, 19 March 2013 (EDT)